Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world

2012-03-07 Thread David Tetzlaff
 Anyone can walk by a painting liking it or not, but sitting in a darkened 
 room as a captive audience may not have quite as many dedicated fans

True. But people who walk by a painting not liking it aren't exactly fans. One 
of the benefits of a proper theatrical screening space is that viewers can 
leave without creating the sort of interruptions that afflict the comings and 
goings of typical 'installations.' I've been to two public screenings of Warhol 
films, both of which started with audiences of 40-50, and when I lights came up 
I saw that less than 10 other folks besides myself had stuck it out. But I 
hadn't noticed the deflections. Some of this just involves really simple things 
like creating a transition space between the 'theater' and the 'lobby' that 
creates some kind of light block, and making sure the hardware on the door 
closers isn't super loud.



___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world

2012-03-06 Thread marilyn brakhage
I don't know much of her story either, though yes, she apparently had  
art world connections.  She seems to work mainly in film, but is  
represented by a gallery.  Some people on the list must be familiar  
with her work?  . . . However beautiful or interesting her films may  
be, there are certainly many others equally worthy, I should think, so  
presumably it has something to do with the networks she is in, in  
addition to whatever inherent value her work has.


I could engage in a little cynicism of my own (not about her  
specifically, but about art world choices in general and what drives  
them), but perhaps that's easy enough for anyone to see -- and I have  
to get back to work now, so am signing off for awhile . . .


MB



A little of my own cynicism:  There is a certain degree of spectacle,  
and of an accessibility of ideas that can be talked about that influence


On 5-Mar-12, at 11:33 PM, John Woods wrote:

This really does seem a little too cynical.  No one is suggesting  
any such thing.  I'm just trying to represent the work of someone  
who is already well-known
and presumably taken seriously.  And I guess what it takes is being  
clear about one's expectations and sticking to it.


Yes, that was a dumb, cynical remark I made.  But I do have a  
genuine question as to what were the circumstances that allowed  
those artists to achieve their special status in the art world  
presenting film in a gallery setting?


I'm mainly familiar with Stan Douglas's work of the past decade  
which includes film  photography (which have sometimes been photos  
related to a film), so he's got the art school and artist from  
another field thing in his support but what of Tacita Dean? I havn't  
seen her work but from my quick study online (ok just wikipedia) she  
seems to be a filmmaker who happened to be associated with a group  
of traditional artists who got some notoriety in the late 80s.  
Clearly she's had a great career, but would the galleries have  
called if she didn't have famous friends?

___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world

2012-03-06 Thread Shelly Silver
gallery representation is the key

On Mar 5, 2012, at 11:41 PM, John Woods wrote:

 Balsom rightly points out that in the museum world there is a double 
 standard “whereby experimental film-makers are treated with less respect 
 than ‘artists working in film’ – such as Tacita Dean, Stan Douglas or 
 Matthew Buckingham – whose work is never subject to such transpositions.”  
 She goes on to say that “recent exhibition practices have demonstrated the 
 persistent
 
 And what was it that put the work of these people into their vaunted status 
 in the museum world? Gallery representation? Art school cred? Press 
 manipulation (publicity stunts, etc.)? Is that what a filmmaker needs to do 
 to be taken seriously? I guess that seems to mostly work for Hollywood.
 ___
 FrameWorks mailing list
 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
 https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world

2012-03-06 Thread Sandra Maliga
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/arts/design/juan-downey-the-invisible-architect-at-bronx-museum.html?_r=1ref=design

Sculptures That Answer Back
‘Juan Downey: The Invisible Architect’ at Bronx Museum

By MARTHA SCHWENDENER
Published: March 1, 2012

And here you can see the other reason, besides the dearth of photo ops, that 
Mr. Downey has gotten short shrift in art history: museums do not know how to 
exhibit video. The installation of Mr. Downey’s mature works in the current 
show qualifies as a crime against art, since several of them are set up so 
closely in the back gallery that the audio tracks literally interrupt and 
cancel each other out. The effect would be comic — the ultimate version of 
exhibition design as postmodern pastiche — if it weren’t so depressing. This, 
after all, is the first major survey of Mr. Downey’s work in this country, and 
to see it mishandled this way is yet another testament to how video, more than 
40 years into its life as an art medium, is still treated like the unwanted 
stepchild of contemporary art.


Insisting that the work be shown effectively is a part of making it work.

-- Sandy Maliga


On Mar 6, 2012, at 4:53 AM, Shelly Silver wrote:

 gallery representation is the key
 
 On Mar 5, 2012, at 11:41 PM, John Woods wrote:
 
 Balsom rightly points out that in the museum world there is a double 
 standard “whereby experimental film-makers are treated with less respect 
 than ‘artists working in film’ – such as Tacita Dean, Stan Douglas or 
 Matthew Buckingham – whose work is never subject to such transpositions.”  
 She goes on to say that “recent exhibition practices have demonstrated the 
 persistent
 
 And what was it that put the work of these people into their vaunted status 
 in the museum world? Gallery representation? Art school cred? Press 
 manipulation (publicity stunts, etc.)? Is that what a filmmaker needs to do 
 to be taken seriously? I guess that seems to mostly work for Hollywood.
 ___
 FrameWorks mailing list
 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
 https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
 
 ___
 FrameWorks mailing list
 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
 https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world

2012-03-06 Thread Myron Ort
an inter-negative is still a reproduction subject to the qualities  
of the film stock and the available technology to make it from the  
original.  The original is ultimately fugitive and undergoes changes  
as does the internegative and certainly the prints.  The museum would  
need to own and care for the fragile artifact the same way they  
struggle to preserve some master 2-D work done on bad paper with  
inappropriate enamels like they must do with some important early  
Abstract Expressionist work.

The film commodity would have to be dealt with in a way that even a  
great piece of photography does not require.  Museums do not need to  
own original negatives of photographic prints do they?
I am thinking that the very nature of film and the experience of it  
is somehow inherently outside of this commodity model and better kept  
within the democratic model, since it is all reproduction on one  
level or another.

Photographic reproduction of paintings do not contain the ultimate  
subtle nuance of the pigments on the canvas (which themselves are  
subject to age over long periods of time).  My experience during the  
era when there were plenty of film labs, was that even then every  
print was slightly different.
Most people know and learn first about art history from reproductions  
in books, and hopefully, are encouraged to see and experience as much  
work in the live form as possible, but let us not underestimate the  
reality and importance of these various forms of reproduction, which  
may ultimately have to include digital technology for the  
dissemination of the basic information. Then hopefully one can  
ideally see a film or two at a museum somewhere. Meanwhile an awful  
lot can be experienced and learned from these  other forms of  
reproduction.  Currently there is hardly enough readily available  
digitally formatted material to get much of an overview of the whole  
scope of experimental/avant garde film. Its all economic I guess.   
First from the struggling filmmakers who are trying to get some money  
for all their efforts and sacrifices to the high cost of making good  
quality DVDs with a questionable market to justify the expense.   
Which does make me wonder what the numbers are for Criterion's  
involvement in the Brakhage anothologies I and II. eg. how much did  
it cost to produce, how much was made, etc. did the numbers really  
work out, apparently so What is the potential then for the rest  
of the work in the overall genre? Would such democratic availability  
then totally destroy the museum commodity model  well maybe no,  
books on Van Gogh just make the lines for the museum show just that  
much longer around the block...

sorry I am just thinking out loud,  meandering, procrastinating while  
I should be doing something else. normally I just delete such  
thoughts without posting too many rigid pedantic sharks out  
there, but what the hell

Myron Ort


On Mar 6, 2012, at 11:34 AM, David Tetzlaff wrote:

 would the galleries have called if she didn't have famous friends?

 I can't speak to specific case, but 'famous friends' definitely  
 matter... if they're artists. As Shelly says, gallery  
 representation is the key, and galleries have to have something to  
 sell. The exchange value of an art commodity is partly determined  
 by its connection to a 'scene' or 'movement' ... A number of years  
 ago, I attended a conference devoted to the work of a well known  
 (but sadly deceased) experimental filmmaker. One of the speakers  
 was a very highly placed curator. This person's talk was entirely  
 about the circle of artists who had lived near and interacted with  
 the filmmaker, all of them identified with media other than film. I  
 was bored stiff by the talk, which struck me as mere trivia. But,  
 in hindsight, I can see that from a curatorial mindset, the speaker  
 was making an argument for the importance of the filmmaker, based  
 on that maker's position in that larger circle of art-world  
 developments -- as it happens, the maker did have famous friends  
 (or friends who became famous). While utterly pointless from my  
 perspective, the talk may have been quite daring for the curator,  
 raising a 'mere filmmaker' to the level of the maker's cohorts in  
 'non-time-based-media'.

 In fact, the curator in question could certainly be considered a  
 historical force in the current interest of the museum world in  
 'all things cinematic'.

 Marilyn wrote:
 given that this interest currently exists, the question becomes  
 what to do with it, and how to ensure that works in film -- from  
 all artists working with it -- are equally valued and given equal  
 respect regarding their presentation.

 While I think Marilyn and I are basically on the same page, I  
 would submit that if one truly does 'get' the economics of the art  
 world, then one has the answer to those questions. The museums have  
 to have more than interest. 

Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world

2012-03-06 Thread Myron Ort
I was probably exaggerating about the work a museum would need to do  
to maintain a film work.
Probably no worse than the climate controlled rooms for great  
paintings etc. and the budgets for restorations.

The museums could own the orignal work, the internegative, and the  
print, and finance the exclusive production of the DVDs, market the  
DVDs the same way they make money on catalogues, books, and post  
cards of their great holdings.

They need to see the sense of this whole model.  They could promote  
the importance of experiencing the films in the original format after  
they generate a new and enormous audience based on their presentation  
of democratically available reproduction media.

Myron Ort

On Mar 6, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Myron Ort wrote:

 an inter-negative is still a reproduction subject to the qualities
 of the film stock and the available technology to make it from the
 original.  The original is ultimately fugitive and undergoes changes
 as does the internegative and certainly the prints.  The museum would
 need to own and care for the fragile artifact the same way they
 struggle to preserve some master 2-D work done on bad paper with
 inappropriate enamels like they must do with some important early
 Abstract Expressionist work.

 The film commodity would have to be dealt with in a way that even a
 great piece of photography does not require.  Museums do not need to
 own original negatives of photographic prints do they?
 I am thinking that the very nature of film and the experience of it
 is somehow inherently outside of this commodity model and better kept
 within the democratic model, since it is all reproduction on one
 level or another.

 Photographic reproduction of paintings do not contain the ultimate
 subtle nuance of the pigments on the canvas (which themselves are
 subject to age over long periods of time).  My experience during the
 era when there were plenty of film labs, was that even then every
 print was slightly different.
 Most people know and learn first about art history from reproductions
 in books, and hopefully, are encouraged to see and experience as much
 work in the live form as possible, but let us not underestimate the
 reality and importance of these various forms of reproduction, which
 may ultimately have to include digital technology for the
 dissemination of the basic information. Then hopefully one can
 ideally see a film or two at a museum somewhere. Meanwhile an awful
 lot can be experienced and learned from these  other forms of
 reproduction.  Currently there is hardly enough readily available
 digitally formatted material to get much of an overview of the whole
 scope of experimental/avant garde film. Its all economic I guess.
 First from the struggling filmmakers who are trying to get some money
 for all their efforts and sacrifices to the high cost of making good
 quality DVDs with a questionable market to justify the expense.
 Which does make me wonder what the numbers are for Criterion's
 involvement in the Brakhage anothologies I and II. eg. how much did
 it cost to produce, how much was made, etc. did the numbers really
 work out, apparently so What is the potential then for the rest
 of the work in the overall genre? Would such democratic availability
 then totally destroy the museum commodity model  well maybe no,
 books on Van Gogh just make the lines for the museum show just that
 much longer around the block...

 sorry I am just thinking out loud,  meandering, procrastinating while
 I should be doing something else. normally I just delete such
 thoughts without posting too many rigid pedantic sharks out
 there, but what the hell

 Myron Ort


 On Mar 6, 2012, at 11:34 AM, David Tetzlaff wrote:

 would the galleries have called if she didn't have famous friends?

 I can't speak to specific case, but 'famous friends' definitely
 matter... if they're artists. As Shelly says, gallery
 representation is the key, and galleries have to have something to
 sell. The exchange value of an art commodity is partly determined
 by its connection to a 'scene' or 'movement' ... A number of years
 ago, I attended a conference devoted to the work of a well known
 (but sadly deceased) experimental filmmaker. One of the speakers
 was a very highly placed curator. This person's talk was entirely
 about the circle of artists who had lived near and interacted with
 the filmmaker, all of them identified with media other than film. I
 was bored stiff by the talk, which struck me as mere trivia. But,
 in hindsight, I can see that from a curatorial mindset, the speaker
 was making an argument for the importance of the filmmaker, based
 on that maker's position in that larger circle of art-world
 developments -- as it happens, the maker did have famous friends
 (or friends who became famous). While utterly pointless from my
 perspective, the talk may have been quite daring for the curator,
 raising a 'mere filmmaker' to the level of the 

Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world

2012-03-06 Thread David Tetzlaff
Great post Myron!!

Myron wrote:

 The film commodity would have to be dealt with in a way that even a great 
 piece of photography does not require.

That's a valid point, but I wonder if it might cut both ways. That is, the cost 
of maintaining a film might initially be a hurdle for museums since they now 
hold film in low esteem. But if that 'art-world interest in all things 
cinematic' keeps rolling, the fragility of the text can actually add to its 
economic value as it establishes an auratic element. (I honestly don't know, 
but I'd guess the care required for those abstract expressionist works with 
sub-optimal pigments and substrate adds to their cache? Does it?)

 I am thinking that the very nature of film and the experience of it is 
 somehow inherently outside of this commodity model and better kept within the 
 democratic model, since it is all reproduction on one level or another.

But some reproductions are better than others, and at some point the difference 
matters. The premise I'm granting in this whole discussion is the FRAMEWORKS 
truism that there is something unique in a celluloid print of many works that 
is worth preserving and trotting out on occasion (which, BTW, I actually 
believe). And all the things I've observed in the last 20 years indicate that 
the circulation of celluloid prints cannot be sustained within a democratic 
model. The rental costs to much compared to the number of people who give a 
damn. Given the economy of information (circulation increases value) the film 
print gets caught in a vicious downward spiral -- if suitable digital 
reproductions are not available. Film projection becomes more difficult to do 
-- films available only as prints get shown less -- fewer people see and talk 
about the work -- the work recedes toward the background noise of the culture 
-- demand continues to decline.

 Most people know and learn first about art history from reproductions in 
 books, and hopefully, are encouraged to see and experience as much work in 
 the live form as possible, but let us not underestimate the reality and 
 importance of these various forms of reproduction, which  may ultimately have 
 to include digital technology for the  
 dissemination of the basic information. Then hopefully one can ideally see 
 a film or two at a museum somewhere. Meanwhile an awful lot can be 
 experienced and learned from these other forms of reproduction.

Yeah, baby. Yeah!

 Currently there is hardly enough readily available digitally formatted 
 material to get much of an overview of the whole scope of experimental/avant 
 garde film.

Exactly!! (Roll on brother Myron!)

 Its all economic I guess. First from the struggling filmmakers who are trying 
 to get some money  
 for all their efforts and sacrifices to the high cost of making good quality 
 DVDs with a questionable market to justify the expense.  Which does make me 
 wonder what the numbers are for Criterion's involvement in the Brakhage 
 anothologies I and II. eg. how much did  it cost to produce, how much was 
 made, etc. did the numbers really  
 work out, apparently so What is the potential then for the rest of the 
 work in the overall genre?

OK, now this is really important. The Hollywood model isn't going to work for 
experimental film either. Nobody's going to make a significant sum of money 
distributing experimental DVDs at any price. I mean, I hope Criterion is in the 
black on the Brakhage disks, and I hope Su Freidrich is getting something back 
from her DVDs, but even small profits are likely to accrue only to a few 
'stars' (just as with print rental income FWIW). But...

 Would such democratic availability then totally destroy the museum commodity 
 model  well maybe no,  
 books on Van Gogh just make the lines for the museum show just that much 
 longer around the block...

That's an Ed McMahon, YESS! (Can I get an Amen!)

This is why I said the museum model is way more workable for moving image work 
of celluloid 'original'. If you shoot in 1080P, the only difference between the 
'original' and the 'reproduction' is the compression artifacting in the 
distribution copy, which is hardly enough to support art-object status. But if 
you can turn film-film into a reasonable facsimilie of an auratic art object, 
there's your source of income

(DISCLAIMER: I don't know Jen Reeves, but I'm just plucking the first 
hypothetical that comes to mind, so in what follows I'm talking about an 
abstract 'Jen Reeves' not the actual person...)

Let's say 'Jen Reeves' made a DVD of 'Chronic' (with a Kinetta scan, of course 
;-), and put an .iso of it on the web under a Creative Commons license, freely 
available for download and showing. LOTS of film and women's courses would 
quickly add it to their syllabi. Writing about the film, and 'Reeves' other 
work would multiply in publications both scholarly and hip/popular. 'Reeves' 
would receive economic benefit in the form of higher personal 

Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world

2012-03-06 Thread Myron Ort

On Mar 6, 2012, at 2:52 PM, David Tetzlaff wrote:

 This is why I said the museum model is way more workable for moving  
 image work of celluloid 'original'. If you shoot in 1080P, the only  
 difference between the 'original' and the 'reproduction' is the  
 compression artifacting in the distribution copy, which is hardly  
 enough to support art-object status. But if you can turn film-film  
 into a reasonable facsimilie of an auratic art object, there's your  
 source of income


This is kind of the crux of the matter.  The filmmaker could then  
have renewed justification for working in precious (expensive)  
celluloid to produce an artifact that would be of high value as a  
potential museum owned commodity. The museum would then own a unique  
one of kind work of cinema art which would likely last longer than  
some digital file. This original (or an internegative depending on  
how sticky or fugtive that first original might be), would be  
purchased by the museum and would become the source for whatever  
level of reproduction both celluloid or digital. The museum  would  
have exclusive rights, the same as a multimillion dollar painting  
they owned. The film screenings of the perfect  (one of kind) print  
in the perfect theater would be the equivalent of seeing an original  
painting and perhaps would generate a serious audience depending on  
how it was promoted through an educational process and promotions  
which the dvd reproductions and associated literature could inspire.  
I do not see any reason why a rejuvenated large audience for art  
film could not be generated this way from amongst the hordes of  
museum goers.  Of course there is the matter of just how many humans  
out there really have the cognitive perceptual physiology to handle  
some experimental aspects of avant garde cinema. Anyone can walk by a  
painting liking it or not, but sitting in a darkened room as a  
captive audience may not have quite as many dedicated fans,  they  
would at least know something from experiencing the dvd  
reproduction.  They could go to the shows of the work they  think  
they get, and maybe some will  even learn to venture outside of  
just knowing what they like and liking what they know and learn to  
break through to experience cinema as something other than escapist  
entertainment.

Myron Ort


  
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world

2012-03-05 Thread David Tetzlaff
Marilynn, implicitly if not explicitly, poses the question: How is it that 
filmmakers are not considered 'artists' within the 'art world'? To 
FRAMEWORKers, that question is surely rhetorical. Of course, filmmakers are 
artists, and it's simply silly for anyone to draw the sorts of distinctions for 
which Marilyn faults Balsom. But the art world DOES draw this distinction, and 
it's worth asking why. 
 The history of artists (i.e. painters and sculptors)
 
A very important point slips by in the parentheses; it's not just filmmakers 
who are 'not artists.' Poets, novelists, composers, musicians, dancers, 
choreographers, playwrights, stage-directors etc. etc. Only painters and 
sculptors and the like really count. So, what is the operating definition here?

I submit it is this: An artist is a person who makes 'art.' 'Art' is a unique 
physical object that has commodity status. It can be sold, acquired, possessed, 
collected and accrue economic value in the process of exchange. Without those 
properties, creative work has no function within the instrumentalities of the 
art world: you can't do with it the things that art-world people do. So it's 
'not art.'

An 'art work' has to have a provenance, and it's history and value as an object 
becomes tied to the history of it's author. 'Artists' are important in the art 
world because their imprimatuer affects the commodity status of their work. As 
such a mediocre film by a painter is more worthy of attention than a great film 
by a filmmaker, because the painter has an established commodity cache.

I feel kind of gob-smacked that so many people seem not to 'get' the basic 
political economy of art -- or maybe it's an aesthetic economy, but anyway it's 
some kind of economy -- since Benjamin and Lukacs have laid it out so clearly.
Curators still don't what to do with Duchamp. When I visited the Tate a few 
years back, they had 'Fountain' on display, accompanied by a wall card that 
noted in very serious language that this was not the ORIGINAL 'Fountain' by 
Duchamp himself, but rather a 'limited' reproduction created by Richard 
Hamilton at Duchamp's behest and with his seal of approval. I almost fell over 
laughing.

Benjamin especially nailed how film upsets the whole aesthetic apple cart. No 
aura, no cult value: an artform by definition liberated from the old way. There 
was an implicit (if inchoate) leftist politics in the formation of experimental 
film institutions such as Anthology, FMC and Canyon. If filmmakers were hostile 
to the museum and gallery world, they had damn good reason to be, on a variety 
of higher principles. (This is a very different thing than being hostile to the 
art in the museums.) Here, as synecdoche, I'll just references the writings of 
Jack Smith, and note that in his later years he was chummy with the 
post-marxist folks at Semiotext(e), and suggested that they simply re-title the 
journal 'Hatred of Capitalism,' (which they later used as the title of an 
anthology).

But time moves on, situations change. It is no longer possible for 
institutions, much less artists, to support themselves by renting celluloid 
prints. The all-powerful market speaks, and most of us have to find some way to 
pay for rent and groceries. The only way for an 'experimental filmmaker' to 
thrive in the art world is to adopt the practices of that world, even though 
they may be antithetical to the apparent nature of the medium. As Chuck notes, 
photography faced a similar problem. Photographic prints though, unlike film 
prints, are subject to significant manipulation in enlarging from the negative. 
Thus, a photographic print can achieve auratic, commodity status: there is only 
one 'Piss Christ' and that has been destroyed...

Marilyn quotes Balsam:
 “recent exhibition practices have demonstrated the persistent vestiges of not 
 considering film to be a legitimate artistic medium on a par with, say, 
 painting or sculpture -- unless, that is, it is sold in limited editions on 
 the art market.  Despite the increasing interpenetration of the worlds of art 
 and experimental film, these lasting ramifications of their differing models 
 of distribution and acquisition continue to mark out a divide between the two 
 realms and their treatment in the contemporary museum.
 
Woot. There it is. 

Marilyn, (putting the real skinny in parentheses again):

 [Further to these points, the selling by filmmakers of limited editions of 
 their work (on celluloid) to museums may, indeed, become more of a norm, as 
 the use of digital reproductions increasingly becomes the norm elsewhere.]
 

In a nutshell, somebody has to pay the bills, and right now the best bet is the 
'art-world'. And the only way to extract resources from the art-world is to 
give them what they value: objects that fit the art world model of purchasing 
and ownership.(MB)

What then do 'film artists' (or their estates) do? Withdraw all prints from 
circulation, and sell the entire materiality 

Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world

2012-03-05 Thread marilyn brakhage

David,

I agree with you that some films definitely need to be seen in the  
traditional cinematic context of dark theatre/auditorium and large  
projection.  (Though I don't think that 'big' is ALWAYS a necessary  
cinematic experience.  Some of my most profound aesthetic experiences  
of films have taken place in a living room on a relatively small  
screen.)  I am also not endorsing gallery-type film installations for  
all films, only for some films.  And I am trying to advocate for it  
being done well (which, as Myron's description of the Bruce Conner  
show demonstrates, is possible).  I agree that some film installations  
(including Brakhage) have been awful.  For me, this has been a  
learning process as to what, exactly, I've had to spell out and ask  
for. One can't assume anything, and it's a constant struggle. The  
increased availability of film works on DVD that you support is also  
something I'm fine with, just as long as we do have SOMEWHERE it will  
still be possible for the films to be seen in their original form.   
That is what I think (and what Erika Balsom was also suggesting, I  
believe) may become the proper role of the museums, then -- with some  
films shown in galleries (and they can sometimes be isolated in  
sections of galleries, in quiet and darkened spaces) and some shown in  
museum auditoria.  The difficulty is in getting the museums and  
galleries to approach this in a serious and respectful way, not just  
presenting us with more of, as you describe it, the available AV  
distraction of everyday life.


Marilyn



On 5-Mar-12, at 3:54 PM, David Tetzlaff wrote:

IMHO, the real battle is not 'film vs. digital', but 'cinema vs.  
iPod'. My personal experience is that the experimental films I value  
most highly do not suffer much from slight image degradations, but  
do suffer greatly when withdrawn from the context of cinema: i.e.  
display on a large screen in a darkened room. You have to  
concentrate to 'get' a lot of this stuff. It NEEDS a certain scale,  
needs to trap you in your seat without the available AV distraction  
of everyday life, to force you to deal with it's otherness.


As such, I find Marilyn's endorsement of gallery-type film  
installations disturbing. I've seen a number of them (including  
Brakhage) and I thought they all were awful, basically reducing the  
work to 'TV': small screen, too much ambient light, people wandering  
in and out distractedly... (The one exception being an Anthony  
McCall piece where the constant influx of people in and out of the  
room, figuring out the sculptural nature of the thing, then playing  
with the beam seemed just right.) If anybody has the responsibility  
to present the material in a way that maximizes it's integrity, it's  
museums. But they don't value the work in that sense, because they  
can't value it in the other sense, so maybe we'd get better  
screenings under a regime of purchasing and ownership. (???)

___


___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world

2012-03-05 Thread Damon
I am in very deeply in agreement with both the frustration and the  
appraisals.  I'll start by saying that Stan Brakhage is an Artist  
working in the medium of film.


What I would observe in answer to this dilemma, in total agreement  
with David, is so simple and straight-forward that it seems  
ludicrous: paintings, drawings, sculpture are things that get  
collected first and foremost for their unique, one-of-a-kind  
nature.   But also as within the continuum of the visual tradition  
associated with other ritually-based institutions (Monarchy and  
Clergy).  Graphic arts, engravings and lithographs, were always  
cheaper reproductions without the auratic cache of original works of  
art.  The introduction of photography and cinema only complicated  
this formula in favor of the Art, not of the film.  Hollywood's  
position in the culture industry only furthers the problems.


Now to back away from the original/copy issue, the next layer of the  
onion tends to be about the Art being placed into museum collections  
and finding its audiences through exhibitions, while the films are  
placed into archives and given screenings to attract their  
audiences.  The goal of the Art is to be collected while the film  
operates at the other end of continuum seeking screenings.  And the  
museum collection is conceived as a cultural history which needs to  
be preserved, while an archive maintains holdings awaiting future  
uses, but not fully integrated into an existing cultural history.


I think to compare the operations of FMC, Canyon, etc. with the  
Castelli/Sonnabend project in the mid-1970s is instructive.  Castelli/ 
Sonnabend sought to place works into collections, although it was  
also willing to facilitate screenings, and they were about producing  
symbolic value for the work, while it seems that the coops have  
served many functions, but the production of symbolic value falls way  
down the list.


In the spirit of this question, I've wondered how the elements of  
this debate, and the other film/digital debates, might change if we  
re-conceived of the frame in terms of projection versus monitors?   
This might allow a middle position recognizing the material need to  
preserve a print, while also seeking a manner to exhibit a film/ 
projection outside the cinema screening format, and to be placed into  
an on-going presentation within the gallery space--possibly resulting  
in the film being more readily perceived as Art.


I was recently told the Roy Lichtenstein Three Landscapes (1970-71)  
installation at the Whitney Museum in New York was wearing out the  
1:00min long 35mm loops daily.  Eventually the museum converted to  
digital for the remainder of the installation.  (http://whitney.org/ 
Exhibitions/RoyLichtenstein)
While the work was fundamentally different, the sound of the three  
film projectors lost to the barely perceptible whir of the LCD  
projectors, the images could be said to haver maintained scale and  
the aura of the Art--if we grant the orig. 35mm prints that aura.


Damon.


On Mar 5, 2012, at 6:54 PM, David Tetzlaff wrote:

Marilynn, implicitly if not explicitly, poses the question: How is  
it that filmmakers are not considered 'artists' within the 'art  
world'? To FRAMEWORKers, that question is surely rhetorical. Of  
course, filmmakers are artists, and it's simply silly for anyone to  
draw the sorts of distinctions for which Marilyn faults Balsom. But  
the art world DOES draw this distinction, and it's worth asking why.

The history of artists (i.e. painters and sculptors)

A very important point slips by in the parentheses; it's not just  
filmmakers who are 'not artists.' Poets, novelists, composers,  
musicians, dancers, choreographers, playwrights, stage-directors  
etc. etc. Only painters and sculptors and the like really count.  
So, what is the operating definition here?


I submit it is this: An artist is a person who makes 'art.' 'Art'  
is a unique physical object that has commodity status. It can be  
sold, acquired, possessed, collected and accrue economic value in  
the process of exchange. Without those properties, creative work  
has no function within the instrumentalities of the art world: you  
can't do with it the things that art-world people do. So it's 'not  
art.'


An 'art work' has to have a provenance, and it's history and value  
as an object becomes tied to the history of it's author. 'Artists'  
are important in the art world because their imprimatuer affects  
the commodity status of their work. As such a mediocre film by a  
painter is more worthy of attention than a great film by a  
filmmaker, because the painter has an established commodity cache.


I feel kind of gob-smacked that so many people seem not to 'get'  
the basic political economy of art -- or maybe it's an aesthetic  
economy, but anyway it's some kind of economy -- since Benjamin and  
Lukacs have laid it out so clearly.
Curators still don't what to do with 

Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world

2012-03-05 Thread John Woods
Balsom rightly points out that in the museum world there is
a double standard “whereby experimental film-makers are treated with less
respect than ‘artists working in film’ – such as Tacita Dean, Stan Douglas or
Matthew Buckingham – whose work is never subject to such transpositions.”  She 
goes on to say that “recent
exhibition practices have demonstrated the persistent

And what was it that put the work of these people into their vaunted status in 
the museum world? Gallery representation? Art school cred? Press manipulation 
(publicity stunts, etc.)? Is that what a filmmaker needs to do to be taken 
seriously? I guess that seems to mostly work for Hollywood.
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world

2012-03-05 Thread marilyn brakhage
Well, yes.  That is, I think we really do all 'get' the basic  
political economy of art, as David put it, and as you reenforce  
here.  But Erika Balsom's essay was about the increasing integration  
of these two worlds that you describe -- 'Art' and film.  It was, in  
part, about the current interest of the museum world in all things  
cinematic.  And so given that this interest currently exists, the  
question becomes what to do with it, and how to ensure that works in  
film -- from all artists working with it -- are equally valued and  
given equal respect regarding their presentation.


While the major museums of the world are certainly exhibiting works  
that have commercial value on the art market, they are also often  
government supported, as well as privately supported, cultural  
institutions charged with preserving, curating and exhibiting cultural  
history.  Certainly they do like to own objects.  And some do buy  
film prints, and have for quite awhile. But film prints, of course,  
wear out.  So some filmmakers have turned to selling limited-edition  
internegatives of their films, giving the museums the means by which  
they can make future prints as needed, something which at least some  
museums are pursuing.  But there is still the necessity of advocating  
for how best to exhibit these works.  I personally feel that a museum  
or art gallery should strive to show work in its original format, with  
careful attention to the viewing environment, the details of which  
depend, in part, on the particular work in question.


. . .  But none of this, as far as I can see, should in any way  
prevent a continued, wider distribution of the works in digital  
reproduction.


I can't speak to the Lichtenstein work you refer to because I don't  
know it, but certainly different works will require different solutions.


Marilyn



On 5-Mar-12, at 6:37 PM, Damon wrote:

I am in very deeply in agreement with both the frustration and the  
appraisals.  I'll start by saying that Stan Brakhage is an Artist  
working in the medium of film.


What I would observe in answer to this dilemma, in total agreement  
with David, is so simple and straight-forward that it seems  
ludicrous: paintings, drawings, sculpture are things that get  
collected first and foremost for their unique, one-of-a-kind  
nature.   But also as within the continuum of the visual tradition  
associated with other ritually-based institutions (Monarchy and  
Clergy).  Graphic arts, engravings and lithographs, were always  
cheaper reproductions without the auratic cache of original works  
of art.  The introduction of photography and cinema only  
complicated this formula in favor of the Art, not of the film.   
Hollywood's position in the culture industry only furthers the  
problems.


Now to back away from the original/copy issue, the next layer of the  
onion tends to be about the Art being placed into museum collections  
and finding its audiences through exhibitions, while the films are  
placed into archives and given screenings to attract their  
audiences.  The goal of the Art is to be collected while the film  
operates at the other end of continuum seeking screenings.  And the  
museum collection is conceived as a cultural history which needs to  
be preserved, while an archive maintains holdings awaiting future  
uses, but not fully integrated into an existing cultural history.


I think to compare the operations of FMC, Canyon, etc. with the  
Castelli/Sonnabend project in the mid-1970s is instructive.   
Castelli/Sonnabend sought to place works into collections, although  
it was also willing to facilitate screenings, and they were about  
producing symbolic value for the work, while it seems that the coops  
have served many functions, but the production of symbolic value  
falls way down the list.


In the spirit of this question, I've wondered how the elements of  
this debate, and the other film/digital debates, might change if we  
re-conceived of the frame in terms of projection versus monitors?   
This might allow a middle position recognizing the material need to  
preserve a print, while also seeking a manner to exhibit a film/ 
projection outside the cinema screening format, and to be placed  
into an on-going presentation within the gallery space--possibly  
resulting in the film being more readily perceived as Art.


I was recently told the Roy Lichtenstein Three Landscapes (1970-71)  
installation at the Whitney Museum in New York was wearing out the  
1:00min long 35mm loops daily.  Eventually the museum converted to  
digital for the remainder of the installation.  (http://whitney.org/Exhibitions/RoyLichtenstein 
)
While the work was fundamentally different, the sound of the three  
film projectors lost to the barely perceptible whir of the LCD  
projectors, the images could be said to haver maintained scale and  
the aura of the Art--if we grant the orig. 35mm prints that aura.


Damon.


On Mar 5, 

Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world

2012-03-05 Thread marilyn brakhage
This really does seem a little too cynical.  No one is suggesting any  
such thing.  I'm just trying to represent the work of someone who is  
already well-known and presumably taken seriously.  And I guess what  
it takes is being clear about one's expectations and sticking to it.


If, on the other hand, you mean how does one get taken seriously, or  
'known,' to begin with, I guess how one got known back in the 60s  
and 70s was quite a different matter from how it might happen  
now.   . . . But fortunately, there are a lot of good film festivals,  
with a lot of good curators and programmers who show interesting  
selections of both new and old films.  Right?  And there are some  
really good museum curators who go to a lot of these festivals and see  
the work.  Granted, it can be hard to get noticed in a crowded field.   
But I guess people continue to use both old and new networks for  
sharing their work.


However, this is an entirely different conversation, and one that many  
other people can address better than me.


MB



On 5-Mar-12, at 8:41 PM, John Woods wrote:

Balsom rightly points out that in the museum world there is a  
double standard “whereby experimental film-makers are treated with  
less respect than ‘artists working in film’ – such as Tacita Dean,  
Stan Douglas or Matthew Buckingham – whose work is never subject to  
such transpositions.”  She goes on to say that “recent exhibition  
practices have demonstrated the persistent


And what was it that put the work of these people into their vaunted  
status in the museum world? Gallery representation? Art school cred?  
Press manipulation (publicity stunts, etc.)? Is that what a  
filmmaker needs to do to be taken seriously? I guess that seems to  
mostly work for Hollywood.

___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world

2012-03-05 Thread John Woods
This really does seem a little too cynical.  No one is suggesting any such 
thing.  I'm just trying to represent the work of someone who is already 
well-known 
and presumably taken seriously.  And I guess what it takes is being clear 
about one's expectations and sticking to it.   

Yes, that was a dumb, cynical remark I made.  But I do have a genuine question 
as to what were the circumstances that allowed those artists to achieve their 
special status in the art world presenting film in a gallery setting?

I'm mainly familiar with Stan Douglas's work of the past decade which includes 
film  photography (which have sometimes been photos related to a film), so 
he's got the art school and artist from another field thing in his support but 
what of Tacita Dean? I havn't seen her work but from my quick study online (ok 
just wikipedia) she seems to be a filmmaker who happened to be associated with 
a group of traditional artists who got some notoriety in the late 80s. Clearly 
she's had a great career, but would the galleries have called if she didn't 
have famous friends?
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world

2012-03-04 Thread marilyn brakhage
Awhile back, Chuck Kleinhans posted a link to an essay by Erika  
Balsom, about the place of experimental cinema within the museum/art  
world context, which I did find interesting and wanted to make some  
response to.  Sorry for the length.  I assume all uninterested can  
just delete now!


Marilyn Brakhage


A Response to:  “Brakhage’s sour grapes, or notes on experimental  
cinema in the art world.”




Erika Balsom’s essay, her “notes on experimental cinema in the art  
world,” explores the place of what she calls “experimental film”  
within a museum context, and how to successfully integrate this body  
of work into the institutions of the art world.  This is a really  
important issue for the future of film.  And she both raises important  
questions and arrives at some interesting and valuable conclusions.   
However, I think she also bases her understanding of the historical  
situation on some questionable premises.  Her essay itself reveals (to  
me) some obvious contradictions in her argument about the how and why  
of the historical exclusion of “experimental film” from the art world  
establishment (and its sometimes half-hearted inclusion now), even  
while coming to some astute assessments of the current situation.




She does insist upon maintaining, from beginning to end, the  
questionable terminology that maintains the false distinction of  
“experimental cinema” and “artists’ cinema.”  I know, of course, what  
she is referring to, historically.  But maintaining this vocabulary  
becomes problematic. “Artists’ cinema” seems still to be understood by  
her as cinema made by people who are artists in other media, and  
“experimental filmmakers” are (apparently) assumed not to be  
“artists.”  That is to say, she never really questions the validity of  
the terminology.  And as she uses Stan Brakhage as a prime example of  
the so-called experimental filmmaker’s “hostility” towards the art  
world, I feel it necessary to point out that 1) Stan never considered  
himself an “experimental” filmmaker, 2) Stan absolutely and without  
question considered himself an artist, 3) he did not want his films  
reserved for “a closed and impenetrable community,” he wanted them to  
be seen by everyone, and 4) the hyperbolic Brakhage quotations she  
references should be understood in a larger context of sometimes  
conflicting thoughts, emotions and issues – which I think she does  
somewhat misrepresent.




The history of artists (i.e. painters and sculptors) who made forays  
into filmmaking is a problematic one – not so much in the early  
decades of the 20th century, and not so much now, perhaps, but in the  
decades in between.  Perhaps it was really those artists from other  
media who were often “experimenting” with film.  (It is more RARE than  
not, I think, for an artist who excels in one medium to also excel in  
another.)  So some very great painters, so I’ve heard, made some  
rather bad – or, at least, not very interesting -- films.  But good,  
bad, or indifferent -- it was their films that would be accepted by  
the art establishment.  (I can remember, when studying Art History in  
the 80s, professors who would tell students it was only okay to write  
about film if one wrote about “a film made by an artist” -- meaning a  
painter or sculptor, for example. They would never say that you could  
only write about a sculpture made by a painter!  But film, as a single  
medium of choice, was not a recognized art form by the academy.   
Someone who ONLY made films could not possibly be a true artist, in  
this view.)




Brakhage’s warnings to Sharits (and others) about the supposed  
“poison” of the museum/art world may have been, in part, a reaction to  
these exclusionary attitudes of the “art world,” and to the dubious  
choices that were being made by the establishment in regard to film;  
they also would have been due, in part, yes, to a fear of loss of  
‘life,’ as it were, from official enshrinement, perhaps; and probably  
also due to his fear of fellow filmmaker-artists being threatened with  
a loss of integrity, of their not being true to the art of film (the  
dangers of fame and money and institutional pressures, etc.), as he  
frequently witnessed the perhaps understandable desire of many to  
‘escape’ from the hardships of being an independent filmmaker and to  
find a more successful alternative.  He likewise warned against the  
‘evils’ of Hollywood.  But Stan didn’t really hate museums and art  
galleries; he did not engage in “totalizing rejection” of the art  
world, as she puts it.  He certainly went to museums and art galleries  
whenever he could.  And he considered himself a part of a long, visual  
art tradition.  In fact, while there might be something to the avant- 
garde artists’ suspicions of the establishment – an honorable enough  
tradition – contributing to their insistent independence, it was  
certainly not a rejection of any true “art world.”  

Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world

2012-02-23 Thread Jim Flannery
Thursday, February 23, 2012, 7:39:39 AM, one wrote:

 Frameworks readers might be interested in this article in a new
 journal from Intellect books: It's free as an electronic file; the single 
 copy price is US $36.00


Strikingly relevant to one point in a recent discussion, isn't it?
[saved for weekend reading] Thanks, Chuck.

-- 
\ Jim Flannery
j...@newgrangemedia.com


___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks