Re: [Frameworks] Annette Michelson and Peter Gidal

[Nicky Hamlyn]

'stairs' not 'stars'!

Envoyé depuis mon smartphone Sony Xperia™

 Nicky Hamlyn a écrit 

>___
>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] Annette Michelson and Peter Gidal

[Nicky Hamlyn]

I suspect Arnulf Rainer is excluded because it's abstract,  my assumption being 
based on Gidal's critique of Sharits., ie, the viewer can fantasise 'into' 
blank colour frames just as much as they can falsely identify with a character 
in a movie. Some of Gidal's own films, eg Room Film 1973, use an 'algorithm', 
others don't. When Gidal programmed the LFMC cinema he showed plenty of work he 
didn't like, as he restated at a recent anniversary screening at the BFI. By 
the way, it's 'Structural Materialist, not 'Structuralist Materialist'. This is 
partly, I believe, to distinguish it from other structuralisms, but also to 
focus the distinction from Sitney's (more or less useless) formulation. Nicky. 



 Dave Tetzlaff a écrit 

>> My notion of "including Ono and Ackerman [sic]" is, you're right, 
>> wrongheaded.
>
>Sorry if the double-negative was unclear, but I was saying including those 
>makers is NOT wrongheaded at all. The gag (I was going for a bot o' irony) was 
>that your thinking that doing so 'went against the grain' was 'wrongheaded', 
>in that there isn't really a genre grain to go against. Rather there are fiber 
>strands going different directions, criss-crossing, bumping into each other, 
>tangling contentiously. Thus, my thesis is that drawing boundaries defined by 
>Gidal's polemical principles, or even his choices of what to argue against, is 
>kind of against the grain of the larger 'thing' Gidal was partaking in, which 
>I might guess he saw 'dialectically' (??). 
>
>> Why Kubelka's "Arunulf Rainer" doesn't make the cut.  Compositional rather 
>> than algorithmic perhaps?  
>
>Sounds right to me. I suppose you could argue that 'Arnulf Rainer' and 
>'Adebar' are 'materialist' but not 'structuralist'. 
>
>> Ono's Four (Bottoms) and Akerman's La Chambre, would they please him at all?
>
>Qua Mulvey, "please" might not be the right term… ;-)
>
>> Or be infuriating because…
>
>What? There are structuralist films that AREN'T infuriating? ;-)
>At least to someone…
>(Did Gidal ever have anything to say about 'Awful Backlash' or 'Bleu Shut'?)
>
>> Once I've moved to "relevant to the debates" then we still need to either 
>> resurrect or have those debates.
>
>Indeed. I didn't mean to suggest 'were relevant to the debates at the time'. 
>Nor 'have been taken as relevant in the literature then to now.' If you think 
>the Ono and Akerman are relevant, then they are. Regardless of what Gidal 
>thinks of those works, I'm guessing he'd be pleased that someone is working 
>through his ideas with work no one's considered before, testing film against 
>theory, and theory against film - regardless of whether he agreed with your 
>conclusions (not that you need to have anything but interesting questions…) 
>
>> I say Ono and Akerman become more interesting when considered in relation to 
>> these debates…
>
>'Nobody's explored that before' = 'publishable journal articles' = 'how to get 
>rid of the "visiting" in front of your job title… Or better yet, a book 
>contract. Not only may there be enough films by women (old and new) that 
>haven't been been considered in light of these dabates, but AFAIK crunching 
>Gidal-relevant theories of the politics of representation against feminist 
>theory (new and old) is relatively unexplored territory as well..
>
>
>I can't speak to Gidal's standards, but as _I_ understand it, "unity of time 
>and space" hardly disqualifies a work from any 'structural/structuralist' 
>rubric I can imagine. ('Wavelength', after all, has a unity of filmic time and 
>space, if not shot in real time.) I think 'algorithmic vs. compositional' is 
>in the right directions, but I'm not comfortable calling some of the simpler 
>"predetermined shapes/outlines" (Sitney) "algorithms", as to me that implies a 
>somewhat more complex formula, and one that usually establishes some pattern 
>of change over the running time (e.g. Critical Mass, Serene Velocity, Print 
>Generation, etc.) It's more like the maker appears to give up some choices 
>we'd see in other 'not-structural' films to that predetermined concept. Not 
>that this giving-up alone makes a film 'structural/ist', but it seems to be a 
>necessary condition. "Unity of time and space" can be some kind of 
>'not-editing where'd you expect there to be editing'. I'd put 'Highway 
>Landscape' in the 'structural' bin, or at least not toss it out… The Fluxus 
>slo-mo single-take films count too, IMHO, and while we're on all things Ono, 
>I'd suggest Mieko/Chieko Shiomi's 'Disappearing Music for Face' might fit your 
>search, if you haven't already included it.
>
>I did think of one fairly recent (and likely not well known) work in light of 
>your query: 'Summer Solstice' by Nina Yuen (one of Louise Borque's former 
>students). It's a long take with the camera mounted in a car, pointed out the 
>front windsheild. As the car (driven by Yuen's mother, whose voice is heard on 
>the soundtrack) moves back and forth along the length 

Re: [Frameworks] Annette Michelson and Peter Gidal

[Deke Dusinberre]

Hello John (and Frameworkers),

On 23 Feb 2016, at 12:00, frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com wrote:
> -how it is that in 1976 Peter Gidal can include Annette Michelson's June 1971 
> Artforum piece "Towards Snow" in his Structural Film Anthology when in the 
> September 1971 issue of Artforum he excoriates her and this piece in 
> particular, beginning a letter to the editor, 
>> "In a remarkably wrongheaded piece, Annette Michelson…”
That was Peter, through and through. And perhaps still is, if he hasn’t changed 
over the years. Our paths haven’t crossed much in recent decades, so the 
comments below pertain to the time and place in question (1970s, London).
Gidal’s favorite rhetorical trope was the oxymoron: assert something and then 
immediately contradict it (often in parentheses). This tactic regularly 
featured in his writings of the day and could also be seen in his films in so 
far as one shot was often sabotaged by the following shot, either through 
seemingly pointless repetition or through a troubling tentativeness. The 
reader/beholder couldn’t help but wonder, “What’s this guy really trying to 
say?”
His strategy was partly inspired, as Gidal himself acknowledged, by the 
structural contradictions in Beckett’s fiction (blurring of tense, place, and 
narrator), and it certainly had artistic ramifications. But it was also a 
personality trait, and an infuriatingly charming one at that. Peter loved a 
polemic, and could make outrageous assertions about things and people, but 
never with malice; his gibes were always delivered with a big “gee, folks” grin 
and an uplifting American intonation that implicitly conveyed, “This all just 
for fun, right, guys? Hey, let’s go get a beer.” 
Since he behaved this way in general, Michelson is not particularly relevant 
here, except that she was a high-profile target at the time: he could take a 
public pot-shot or two while simultaneously striking up an alliance. 
In short, Peter never “excoriated” anyone, he ran Gidalian rings around them.

Fans should note that the anthology of Gidal’s essays edited by Mark Webber 
will soon be hitting the bookshelves ("Flare Out: Aesthetics 1966–2016").

HTH,

Deke Dusinberre
Paris 

de...@orange.fr
Tel: (33-1) 42.54.38.05

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

Re: [Frameworks] Black Leader

[Lyndsay Bloom]

Thanks Jeff, Alain, and Scott! Colorlab and ORWO are out of acetate black
emulsion leader, but thankfully I found enough on ebay. ORWO said they're
working on an order, but it won't be ready by springtime.

On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Jeff Kreines  wrote:

> Try Colorlab.  They still do a lot of 16mm work. http://www.colorlab.com/
>
>
> On Feb 20, 2016, at 2:21 PM, Lyndsay Bloom 
> wrote:
>
> Good afternoon,
> Does anyone have 16mm black leader for sale, or does anyone know a source
> that still makes or sells black leader? Kodak stopped making it, and
> apparently Urbanski's out, but I'll need about 1150 feet, the negative
> cutter said, to make prints of films I want to loop in my thesis
> installation.
> Thank you kindly for any suggestions.
> Lyndsay Bloom
> ___
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
> Jeff Kreines
> Kinetta
> j...@kinetta.com
> kinetta.com
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] 360 degrees

[vanessa renwick]

I was thinking that there also is some over the top Fassbinder loopityloop
shot, rotating around Fassbinder, when he starred in Wolf Gremm's Kamikaze
89.

Vanessa Renwick
Oregon Department of Kick Ass 



On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Hardin, Ted  wrote:

> Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s fondness for this technique was on display at
> the Martin Gropius Bau in Berlin last year.  Here’s a list of films that
> were displayed:  “Another room in *Fassbinder – JETZT* is dedicated to
> one of Fassbinder’s favoured formal techniques: the 360 degree tracking
> shot. Scenes from *Rio das Mortes* (1970), *World on a Wire* (1973), *Martha
> *(1973), *Chinese Roulette* (1976), * Berlin Alexanderplatz* (1979/80),
> and *Querelle* (1982) play on a loop on a hanging screen.”
>
> ‘Chinese Roulette’ has my favorite 720 degree tracking shot through glass
> shelves.
>
> The write up:
> http://berlinfilmjournal.com/2015/08/petrified-fassbinder-jetzt-annotated/
>
>
> ‘Martha’  clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z0tVsI-63g
>
> Ted Hardin
> Columbia College Chicago
>
> On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:10 PM, Fred Camper  wrote:
>
> A handheld 360 movement around two young men kissing in an obvious homage
> to the "Vertigo" kiss appears in Warren Sonbert's first film, "Amphetamine."
>
> Fred Camper
> Chicago
>
> ___
> 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] 360 degrees

[Adam Sekuler]

Apichatpong has one in his National Anthem short. Also Godard's Sympathy
For The Devil.
On Feb 17, 2016 5:06 PM, "Gene Youngblood"  wrote:

> Friends,
> I need recommendations of films that contain 360-degree dolly (or
> Steadicam) shots. Like for example circling around people seated at a
> restaurant table, but it can be anything. It seems to me there are “famous”
> ones in the French New Wave, and there must be many others before and after
> that.
> ___
> 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] 360 degrees

[salise.hug...@gmail.com]

Fassbender's Whity (1971).

- Reply message -
From: "Hardin, Ted" 
To: "Experimental Film Discussion List" 
Subject: [Frameworks] 360 degrees
Date: Tue, Feb 23, 2016 8:27 pm
Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s fondness for this technique was on display at the 
Martin Gropius Bau in Berlin last year.  Here’s a list of films that were 
displayed:  “Another room in
Fassbinder – JETZT is dedicated to one of Fassbinder’s favoured formal 
techniques: the 360 degree tracking shot. Scenes from
Rio das Mortes (1970), World on a Wire (1973),
Martha (1973), Chinese Roulette (1976), 
Berlin Alexanderplatz (1979/80), and Querelle (1982) play on a loop on a 
hanging screen.”


‘Chinese Roulette’ has my favorite 720 degree tracking shot through glass 
shelves.


The write up:  
http://berlinfilmjournal.com/2015/08/petrified-fassbinder-jetzt-annotated/ 


‘Martha’  clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z0tVsI-63g


Ted Hardin
Columbia College Chicago



On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:10 PM, Fred Camper  wrote:

A handheld 360 movement around two young men kissing in an obvious homage to 
the "Vertigo" kiss appears in Warren Sonbert's first film, "Amphetamine."

Fred Camper
Chicago

___
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] 360 degrees

[Dave Tetzlaff]

Folks, Gene asked for 360° _tracking_ shots, not pans.

Is there an old DePalma film that DOESN'T have one?

I can't recall if any of the 'bullet time' slo-mo shots in the Matrix films, or 
subsequent action films that aped that technique, went all the way around But 
I'm guessing there are examples (??). Or under-cranked examples (??).
 
It seems almost so common now that exemplars in commercial cinema just fade 
into 'oh no, not that again'…

Though Gene specified on-tracks or Stedicam, I think I might have seen circling 
some subject in handheld/nausea-cam stuff. Are there examples in any 
documentary actualities? It seems like something Pennebaker would have done at 
least once… 'One PM' maybe?
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Annette Michelson and Peter Gidal

[Dave Tetzlaff]

> My notion of "including Ono and Ackerman [sic]" is, you're right, wrongheaded.

Sorry if the double-negative was unclear, but I was saying including those 
makers is NOT wrongheaded at all. The gag (I was going for a bot o' irony) was 
that your thinking that doing so 'went against the grain' was 'wrongheaded', in 
that there isn't really a genre grain to go against. Rather there are fiber 
strands going different directions, criss-crossing, bumping into each other, 
tangling contentiously. Thus, my thesis is that drawing boundaries defined by 
Gidal's polemical principles, or even his choices of what to argue against, is 
kind of against the grain of the larger 'thing' Gidal was partaking in, which I 
might guess he saw 'dialectically' (??). 

> Why Kubelka's "Arunulf Rainer" doesn't make the cut.  Compositional rather 
> than algorithmic perhaps?  

Sounds right to me. I suppose you could argue that 'Arnulf Rainer' and 'Adebar' 
are 'materialist' but not 'structuralist'. 

> Ono's Four (Bottoms) and Akerman's La Chambre, would they please him at all?

Qua Mulvey, "please" might not be the right term… ;-)

> Or be infuriating because…

What? There are structuralist films that AREN'T infuriating? ;-)
At least to someone…
(Did Gidal ever have anything to say about 'Awful Backlash' or 'Bleu Shut'?)

> Once I've moved to "relevant to the debates" then we still need to either 
> resurrect or have those debates.

Indeed. I didn't mean to suggest 'were relevant to the debates at the time'. 
Nor 'have been taken as relevant in the literature then to now.' If you think 
the Ono and Akerman are relevant, then they are. Regardless of what Gidal 
thinks of those works, I'm guessing he'd be pleased that someone is working 
through his ideas with work no one's considered before, testing film against 
theory, and theory against film - regardless of whether he agreed with your 
conclusions (not that you need to have anything but interesting questions…) 

> I say Ono and Akerman become more interesting when considered in relation to 
> these debates…

'Nobody's explored that before' = 'publishable journal articles' = 'how to get 
rid of the "visiting" in front of your job title… Or better yet, a book 
contract. Not only may there be enough films by women (old and new) that 
haven't been been considered in light of these dabates, but AFAIK crunching 
Gidal-relevant theories of the politics of representation against feminist 
theory (new and old) is relatively unexplored territory as well..


I can't speak to Gidal's standards, but as _I_ understand it, "unity of time 
and space" hardly disqualifies a work from any 'structural/structuralist' 
rubric I can imagine. ('Wavelength', after all, has a unity of filmic time and 
space, if not shot in real time.) I think 'algorithmic vs. compositional' is in 
the right directions, but I'm not comfortable calling some of the simpler 
"predetermined shapes/outlines" (Sitney) "algorithms", as to me that implies a 
somewhat more complex formula, and one that usually establishes some pattern of 
change over the running time (e.g. Critical Mass, Serene Velocity, Print 
Generation, etc.) It's more like the maker appears to give up some choices we'd 
see in other 'not-structural' films to that predetermined concept. Not that 
this giving-up alone makes a film 'structural/ist', but it seems to be a 
necessary condition. "Unity of time and space" can be some kind of 'not-editing 
where'd you expect there to be editing'. I'd put 'Highway Landscape' in the 
'structural' bin, or at least not toss it out… The Fluxus slo-mo single-take 
films count too, IMHO, and while we're on all things Ono, I'd suggest 
Mieko/Chieko Shiomi's 'Disappearing Music for Face' might fit your search, if 
you haven't already included it.

I did think of one fairly recent (and likely not well known) work in light of 
your query: 'Summer Solstice' by Nina Yuen (one of Louise Borque's former 
students). It's a long take with the camera mounted in a car, pointed out the 
front windsheild. As the car (driven by Yuen's mother, whose voice is heard on 
the soundtrack) moves back and forth along the length of a driveway, Yuen 
enters and exits the frame performing a sort of ritual dance for the solstice. 
Louise showed it, among other works by young women makers, at a feminism and 
avant grade conference at the U. of Hartford back in the previous decade. I 
thought it was very cool…

Cheers, and thanks for the engaging dialog…

djt


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

Re: [Frameworks] 360 degrees

[Hardin, Ted]

Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s fondness for this technique was on display at the 
Martin Gropius Bau in Berlin last year.  Here’s a list of films that were 
displayed:  “Another room in Fassbinder – JETZT is dedicated to one of 
Fassbinder’s favoured formal techniques: the 360 degree tracking shot. Scenes 
from Rio das Mortes (1970), World on a Wire (1973), Martha (1973), Chinese 
Roulette (1976), Berlin Alexanderplatz (1979/80), and Querelle (1982) play on a 
loop on a hanging screen.”

‘Chinese Roulette’ has my favorite 720 degree tracking shot through glass 
shelves.

The write up:  
http://berlinfilmjournal.com/2015/08/petrified-fassbinder-jetzt-annotated/

‘Martha’  clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8z0tVsI-63g

Ted Hardin
Columbia College Chicago

On Feb 23, 2016, at 8:10 PM, Fred Camper 
> wrote:

A handheld 360 movement around two young men kissing in an obvious homage to 
the "Vertigo" kiss appears in Warren Sonbert's first film, "Amphetamine."

Fred Camper
Chicago

___
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] 360 degrees

[vanessa renwick]

Fassbinder
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZbGOrvi_t0
I think there were some other Fassbinder films with more circling shots,
will try and remember them.

Vanessa Renwick
Oregon Department of Kick Ass 



On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Gene Youngblood  wrote:

> Friends,
> I need recommendations of films that contain 360-degree dolly (or
> Steadicam) shots. Like for example circling around people seated at a
> restaurant table, but it can be anything. It seems to me there are “famous”
> ones in the French New Wave, and there must be many others before and after
> that.
> ___
> 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] 360 degrees

[Gene Youngblood]

Thanks, Fred. Speaking of Sonbert, I ran across a VOD service that has most of 
his films, but I forgot the name of the company. Andy Ditzler suggested Jon 
Gartenberg might have something to do with it, and indeed I vaguely recall his 
name on the site. I emailed Jon and am awaiting a reply. It would be fantastic 
to see those films I haven’t seen for 40 years.


> On Feb 23, 2016, at 7:10 PM, Fred Camper  wrote:
> 
> A handheld 360 movement around two young men kissing in an obvious homage to 
> the "Vertigo" kiss appears in Warren Sonbert's first film, "Amphetamine."
> 
> Fred Camper
> Chicago
> 
> ___
> 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] 360 degrees

[Fred Camper]

A handheld 360 movement around two young men kissing in an obvious 
homage to the "Vertigo" kiss appears in Warren Sonbert's first film, 
"Amphetamine."


Fred Camper
Chicago

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

[Frameworks] INCITE #∞: Forever now in print

[Brett Kashmere]

Dear Frameworkers,

The new, sixth issue of *INCITE: Journal of Experimental Media *is now in
print and ready-to-ship. Themed "Forever," the issue features contributions
by nearly three dozen movie artists and media archivists spanning the
written word, the moving image, comics, found photography, video art,
Twitter, and even comedy. A multiples edition (with art by Bradley Eros,
Jon Dieringer, a reissue of the special audio cassette tape issue of the
legendary experimental film magazine/artbook SPIRAL, and more) is also
available. Details below.

XO,
Brett

<>

*INCITE: Journal of Experimental Media*
*Issue #∞: Forever*

Edited by Walter Forsberg & John Klacsmann

View Table of Contents 
Read Introduction 

*Contributors: *@timebasedmedia, Peggy Ahwesh, Anonymous, Craig Baldwin,
Nadia Baram Larralde, Michael Betancourt, Mark Byrnes, Terry Cannon,
Rutherford Chang, Steve Cossman, Kevin Croker, Jon Dieringer, Clint Enns,
Bradley Eros, Walter Forsberg, Brian L. Frye, Jason Fulford, Marsha Gordon,
Sabine Gruffat, Cheryl Hann, Brett Kashmere, John Klacsmann, Andrew
Lampert, Charles Levine, Ross Lipman, Amy Lockhart, John Madey, Zak
Marmalefsky, Jesse McLean, T. K. Peters, Greg Pierce, Suzanne
Porath, Sabrina Ratté, Samplerman, Soda_Jerk, Leslie Supnet

*"In contemporary economies of immediacy and connectivity, what
is temporality’s role and relevance other than as a force to be exploded?"*

Why are LPs and film reels and optical discs and iPod menu buttons all
circular? What does it mean to wait 8 hours in line to see Marclay’s “The
Clock”? Why does Hollis Frampton scholar Clint Enns claim: “Duration is
Dead”? Who wore post-apocalyptic 1980s cinema better: Darryl Hannah, or
Neil Young + DEVO? Is La Monte Young a spinning disk or a flash memory kind
of guy? Why did film loop installations become art-world de rigger as Kodak
went into bankruptcy protection? What the fuck is “time-based media”?
Are screensavers art? What does it mean to be "permanently preserved"? Is
that even possible? Why don’t they make them like they used to? Does it
really matter?

230 pages
Full color, perfect bound
$25 USD / $35 USD (artist multiples edition) + shipping
*Institutional-use pricing and digital version also available. *

Order: http://incite.bigcartel.com

ARTIST MULTIPLES include: *BLACK HOLE CINEMA Dossier, *a zine by Bradley
Eros; special re-issue of *SPIRAL* No. 3 (April 1985), Compact Cassette
tape; INCITE #∞ Call For Entries flier by issue editors; *24 HOUR WEEKEND
AT BERNIE'S *Blu-ray Disc by Jon Dieringer; DURATION IS DEAD sticker by
Klacsmann; EXPANDED CINEMA COUNTER-ILLUMINATION button by @timebasedmedia.


-- 
*Brett Kashmere*
*INCITE Journal of Experimental Media*
*edi...@incite-online.net *
*www.incite-online.net  *
*facebook.com/incite.journal *
Current Issue: INCITE #∞, Forever 
New Online: Interview with Kelly Gallagher
, by Kelsey Velez
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Annette Michelson and Peter Gidal

[John Muse]

Thanks so much for this, Mark.  You've given us so much delicious food for 
thought!

On Feb 23, 2016, at 7:28 AM, Mark Webber  wrote:

> The Visible Press is about to publish a collection of writings by Peter Gidal 
> titled “Flare Out: Aesthetics 1966–2016”, which I have also edited. Please 
> see below for further information. The book does include Gidal’s letter to 
> Artforum, alongside many other texts from the past 50 years. The full table 
> of contents - and the possibility to order online (since we don’t have 
> distribution) - are at http://www.thevisiblepress.com/flare-out/
> 
> I do know that Gidal and Michelson are on good terms and have been for many 
> years since this exchange, and I’m quite sure that the decision of what to 
> include, or to not include, in the “Structural Film Anthology” would have 
> been his. I asked him about John Muse’s question over the inclusion of 
> Annette’s piece on Michael Snow and his response was as follows :- 
> 
> “because it was the most appropriate, and dominant, and wrongheaded american 
> formalist (ps: the very opposite of say schklovskian formalism) response to 
> mike snow's film, and the anthology, like e.g.the co-op cinema,wasn't there 
> to impose one position but to problematize, in the case of the co-op, film, 
> in the case of the anthology, film theory and criticism. i knew i could've 
> written a far more appropriate and radical piece on wavelength, but chose not 
> to. my "reply" in a sense was my piece on his films back and forth and 
> standard time. 
> 
> “and this is not to ignite some old battles with annette as i have no 
> intention of not getting along with her famously, same goes for her i am 
> sure.” 
> 
> The book will be published on 11 April 2016 but is now available to 
> pre-order. I will post further information, including details of related 
> events, on Frameworks at a later date. 
> 
> Mark Webber
> 
> ...
> 
> PETER GIDAL / FLARE OUT: AESTHETICS1966–2016
> Edited by Mark Webber and Peter Gidal
> The Visible Press, April 2016
> 
> “Flare Out: Aesthetics 1966–2016” is a collection of essays by Peter Gidal 
> that includes “Theory and Definition of Structural/Materialist Film” and 
> other texts on metaphor, narrative, and against sexual representation. Also 
> discussed in their specificity are works by Samuel Beckett, Thérèse Oulton, 
> Gerhard Richter and Andy Warhol. Throughout, Gidal’s writing attempts a 
> political aesthetics, polemical as well as theoretical. One of the foremost 
> experimental film-makers in Britain since the late 1960s, Peter Gidal was a 
> central figure at the London Film-Makers’ Co-operative, and taught advanced 
> film theory at the Royal College of Art. His previous books include "Andy 
> Warhol: Films and Paintings (1971)”, “Understanding Beckett” (1986) and 
> “Materialist Film” (1989).
> 
> “An essential point of access to the questions and considerations through 
> which Peter Gidal has consistently fought for film – and vision itself – as a 
> process of interrogation. This collection renews the agency of his primary 
> question: ‘What is it to view, how to view the unknown?’”
>  (Stuart Comer, Museum of Modern Art, New York)
> 
> “Radical, spirited, provocative … Inspiring and invaluable, really. In here 
> we find a welcome voice, singularly unpatronising, nuanced yet fearless in 
> the face of the mind-narrowing opacity of ‘everyday life’.”
>  (Cerith Wyn Evans)
> 
> ISBN 978-0-9928377-1-6 
> Hardcover, 288 pages including 16pp images
> Square-backed case, debossed cover and spine, ribbon marker, h/t bands
> Price: £18 plus shipping
> 
> www.thevisiblepress.com
> www.facebook.com/thevisiblepress
> @thevisiblepress
> 
>> On 23 Feb 2016, at 12:00, frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com wrote:
>> 
>> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:00:15 -0500
>> From: John Muse 
>> To: Experimental Film Discussion List 
>> Subject: [Frameworks] Annette Michelson and Peter Gidal
>> Message-ID: <166d25f7-8dd8-4be7-a6e0-1d42d832c...@sonic.net>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>> 
>> Can someone briefly explain--or point me to resources that explain--how it 
>> is that in 1976 Peter Gidal can include Annette Michelson's June 1971 
>> Artforum piece "Towards Snow" in his Structural Film Anthology when in the 
>> September 1971 issue of Artforum he excoriates her and this piece in 
>> particular, beginning a letter to the editor, 
>> 
>>> In a remarkably wrongheaded piece, Annette Michelson, in the june Artforum 
>>> asserts, with reference to Michael Snow's film, Wavelength, "Snow has 
>>> redefined filmic space as that of action.
>> 
>> "… remarkably wrongheaded…" is certainly polemical, but there she is in the 
>> anthology.  What happened? Was her response to him persuasive?   
>> 
>> I'll take my answer off the air.  
>> 
>> j/PrM
> 
> ___
> FrameWorks mailing list
> 

Re: [Frameworks] Annette Michelson and Peter Gidal

[John Muse]

Dave, thanks for these speculations, which are helpful and not even wrongheaded.

1. I wholly except and will use your revision: not "structuralist/materialist 
films by women" but "films by women relevant to the debates around 
structuralists and structuralist/materialist cinema." 

2. Yes, Gidal treats Michelson as worthy of attack, but by both careful 
argumentation and invective, colorful and wry, but invective nonetheless.  
E.g., while I'll grant you that "wrongheaded" can be interpreted as wrong but 
not stupid, Gidal's next sentence doubles down on the latter: "Now even the 
most simpleminded film goer such as myself knows and feels, intuitively (and 
rationally, if ratio is needed) that space has always been defined in terms of 
action (inner and outer)."  "Simpleminded" is stupid.  And Michelson on this 
account isn't even stupid; there's only room for mindlessness beyond 
simpleminded.  Gidal includes the Michelson in his anthology but not the 
exchange of letters, which, to my mind--simple or otherwise--would have made it 
an even richer pot.  Contrasts, as you say!  A heap.  I speculate that he let 
her essay stand, spicing his new pot, but he didn't want to, um, stir the old 
pot once more.

3. My notion of "including Ono and Ackerman [sic]" is, you're right, 
wrongheaded.  I could defend against-the-grain because I was, naively, 
interested in taking Gidal's position to be uniform, wanting to understand, for 
example why Kubelka's "Arunulf Rainer" doesn't make the cut.  Compositional 
rather than algorithmic perhaps?  Ono's Four (Bottoms) and Akerman's La 
Chambre, would they please him at all?  Or be infuriating because the former 
doesn't meet Warhol's challenge, merely being "cheeky," and the latter gives us 
unity of time and place?  But I do like and will use your final claim: every 
cut is against the grain because "the lumber in question can't be cut or planed 
smooth in any direction, and the whole point of the wood-crafting is to pull up 
splinters."  That's lovely and true.  I'll only add that the whole point could 
include measuring local isotropies, taking the measure of its durability.  
Gidal isn't the only voice.  But what a voice!  What a grain!  I love the 
Anthology and his prose.  Once I've moved to "relevant to the debates" then we 
still need to either resurrect or have those debates.  I say Ono and Akerman 
become more interesting when considered in relation to these debates though I 
don't know if they were ever relevant to it, if, e.g., anyone has written about 
their work in light of formalist/materialist division.

j



On Feb 23, 2016, at 12:39 PM, Dave Tetzlaff  wrote:

> I've been thinking, about the original query from John Muse in light of the 
> follow-up query about Michelson, doing some wild-ass speculating. Mark's post 
> (he certainly knows WAY more about this than I do) suggests my imaginings are 
> at least not grossly inconsistent with known facts. And my concluding 
> suggestions are that John's project is misconceived in taking 
> 'structuralist/materialist' as a genre, and could be more productively framed 
> as 'films by women relevant to the debates around "structuralists" and 
> "structuralist/materialist" cinema'.
> ___
> 
> I wasn't thinking about the possibility any interpersonal tension might be 
> involved in Gidal's choices – and I'm not at all surprised there isn't any. 
> Rather I was thinking about the function of his choices in relation to the 
> theoretical/critical issues around different concepts of avant grade film, 
> 'formalist' aesthetics, etc. 
> 
> From what I remember (it's been, errr, awhile) Gidal's own essays are quite 
> polemical, define 'structuralist/materialist' quite narrowly, and pretty 
> hard-line towards anything/anyone that doesn't fit his aesthetic politics. I 
> took the core of the position to be a radical left politics of representation 
> – a sort of '_Screen_ Theory' on steroids – in which the goal is a sort of 
> film that disrupts 'the dominant ideology', but goes way beyond the Brechtian 
> concepts someone like Colin McCabe celebrates in the work of Godard. As 
> radical politics, the 'structuralist/materialist' writings have some 
> qualities of political manifestos – 'out there' in a bold way designed to 
> disrupt and stir the pot, not necessarily to be followed to the letter. 
> 
> Thus, it makes sense to frame an edited anthology around the pot, not just 
> the spoon. Having some stuff to debate is part of the fun of most good 
> anthologies, and helps sell the book, as faculty will be more likely to use 
> it if it offers useful contrasts between essays. 'Wrongheaded' is not 
> necessarily 'bad'. 'Bad' would be something so off-base it's not worth 
> arguing about. Michelson would be worth arguing against for Gidal simply 
> because she's Michelson. Gidal's reply to Mark indicates he saw Michelson's 
> piece on Wavelength as paradigmatic of the 'American' view, a good 

Re: [Frameworks] Annette Michelson and Peter Gidal

[Dave Tetzlaff]

I've been thinking, about the original query from John Muse in light of the 
follow-up query about Michelson, doing some wild-ass speculating. Mark's post 
(he certainly knows WAY more about this than I do) suggests my imaginings are 
at least not grossly inconsistent with known facts. And my concluding 
suggestions are that John's project is misconceived in taking 
'structuralist/materialist' as a genre, and could be more productively framed 
as 'films by women relevant to the debates around "structuralists" and 
"structuralist/materialist" cinema'.
___

I wasn't thinking about the possibility any interpersonal tension might be 
involved in Gidal's choices – and I'm not at all surprised there isn't any. 
Rather I was thinking about the function of his choices in relation to the 
theoretical/critical issues around different concepts of avant grade film, 
'formalist' aesthetics, etc. 

From what I remember (it's been, errr, awhile) Gidal's own essays are quite 
polemical, define 'structuralist/materialist' quite narrowly, and pretty 
hard-line towards anything/anyone that doesn't fit his aesthetic politics. I 
took the core of the position to be a radical left politics of representation – 
a sort of '_Screen_ Theory' on steroids – in which the goal is a sort of film 
that disrupts 'the dominant ideology', but goes way beyond the Brechtian 
concepts someone like Colin McCabe celebrates in the work of Godard. As radical 
politics, the 'structuralist/materialist' writings have some qualities of 
political manifestos – 'out there' in a bold way designed to disrupt and stir 
the pot, not necessarily to be followed to the letter. 

Thus, it makes sense to frame an edited anthology around the pot, not just the 
spoon. Having some stuff to debate is part of the fun of most good anthologies, 
and helps sell the book, as faculty will be more likely to use it if it offers 
useful contrasts between essays. 'Wrongheaded' is not necessarily 'bad'. 'Bad' 
would be something so off-base it's not worth arguing about. Michelson would be 
worth arguing against for Gidal simply because she's Michelson. Gidal's reply 
to Mark indicates he saw Michelson's piece on Wavelength as paradigmatic of the 
'American' view, a good example of 'wrongheadedness' (in the sense of both 
'typical' and 'strong') and thus a very good choice for 'problematizing a 
terrain rather than imposing one position'. 

If you're out to slay an idea-dragon, you show the dragon. And you take on the 
Big dragon, not some weak second stringer...


> “fetishization of process and idealization of the formal in its weak sense.”

Ahh, the 1970s. Those were the days, eh? 

This quote strikes me as pointing nicely to how the Brits were defining 
'structuralist-materialist' in OPPOSITION to the essentially apolitical 
aesthetic formalism of American critics including Sitney and Michelson. They 
had a high-theory, hard-line POLITICAL take, yes? Film, including avant grade 
film, played a role in the class struggle whether the makers and critics wanted 
it to or not, and any film or commentary that failed to address the question of 
the IDEOLOGY of form was indeed 'blind' – the joke version being that footage 
in focus was hopelessly bourgeois.

The choice of 'structuralist-materialist' as a rubric was a challenge to the 
'establishment view'. Since Sitney's 'structuralist' label for similar films 
was already in place, 'structuralist-materialist' couldn't help but create 
confusion and conflict – to "problematize". You could say the Brits wanted to 
appropriate (as in 'righteously steal) a chunk of terrain from the bourghy 
formalist wankers as a prize in The Struggle. In an intellectual turf war, you 
want there to be more at stake, so you take a wider view of the territory.

As a thought experiment, consider that Gidal et. al. could have just called it 
"materialist film" from the get-go, and made it clear that despite some 
apparent similarities, works like Wavelength and the sort of 
critical/theoretical position presented by Michelson were NOT what they were 
talking about. Had that been so, had they been defining a new genre, then 
there'd be no rationale for including Mcihelson's piece. But they wanted that 
turf. They wanted to say that Snow and Michelson were 'doing it WRONG!' 

As such, I'd suggest John's notion that he's working against the grain in 
including Ono and Ackerman is 'wrongheaded' in that the grain is not one of 
conformity to polemic principles, but tension and dialogue between those 
principles and other ways of looking at avant grade film practice. Thus, I'm 
thinking John is actually intuitively going with the grain, as the lumber in 
question can't be cut or planed smooth in any direction, and the whole point of 
the wood-crafting is to pull up splinters…
___

In that spirit, I'll note one film/maker not included in Gidal's anthology, and 
not yet mentioned in this thread that strikes me as essential in looking at the 

Re: [Frameworks] Annette Michelson and Peter Gidal

[Chuck Kleinhans]

On Feb 23, 2016, at 4:28 AM, Mark Webber 
> wrote:

The Visible Press is about to publish a collection of writings by Peter Gidal 
titled “Flare Out: Aesthetics 1966–2016”, which I have also edited. Please see 
below for further information. The book does include Gidal’s letter to 
Artforum, alongside many other texts from the past 50 years. The full table of 
contents - and the possibility to order online (since we don’t have 
distribution) - are at http://www.thevisiblepress.com/flare-out/


This is good news!  Back in the day when people actually wrote letters on 
paper, made carbon copies,  and sent them to other physical places and beings, 
a lot of intersting discussion was going on.

Gidal, with his authoritative/authoritarian “rules” on politically correct 
images was probably the most famous mansplainer of his era.  Michelson was 
definitely the perfect adversary,  Well matched.




Chuck Kleinhans




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

Re: [Frameworks] Annette Michelson and Peter Gidal

[maría palacios cruz]

Hi John,

I was the one asking the one question at the event with Peter Gidal at the
Southbank. One of my colleagues at LUX was meant to record the conversation
but something went wrong and for some reason the recording is empty, so we
were actually talking about it this very same morning and speculating that
someone must have recorded it If you could send us the mp3 for our
archive, that would be really appreciated !

Thank you !
María


On 23 February 2016 at 14:01, John McAndrew  wrote:

> Funnily enough, Peter mentioned these public spats with Annette Michelson
> at the recent Q (which was pretty much just *a* question *and* answer,
> albeit a 25 minute one!) he did after a two film programs he curated for
> the ongoing London Filmmaker's Coop 50th Anniversary celebrations at BFI
> Southbank. He's always had a very turbulent critical relationship with
> her, but the two of them apparently were always quite willing to meet up
> whenever they were in town for personal engagements. Interestingly, he
> mentioned that fellow Americans on the other hand took matters FAR more
> personally if they had any critical differences between themselves, and
> would gladly cross the street to avoid each other. If Gidal happen to be in
> one other's company at the time of such an encounter, they would at least
> tolerate the other - whether this is true or not I cannot say.
>
> I actually have most of this interview available as a lo-fi recording
> someone secretly made on the night. I'd be happy to forward the mp3 onto
> those who are interested off-list. As well as offering a fascinating
> snapshot of the times, he was extremely funny too.
>
> Best,
> John
>
> ___
> 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] Annette Michelson and Peter Gidal

[Mark Webber]

The Visible Press is about to publish a collection of writings by Peter Gidal 
titled “Flare Out: Aesthetics 1966–2016”, which I have also edited. Please see 
below for further information. The book does include Gidal’s letter to 
Artforum, alongside many other texts from the past 50 years. The full table of 
contents - and the possibility to order online (since we don’t have 
distribution) - are at http://www.thevisiblepress.com/flare-out/

I do know that Gidal and Michelson are on good terms and have been for many 
years since this exchange, and I’m quite sure that the decision of what to 
include, or to not include, in the “Structural Film Anthology” would have been 
his. I asked him about John Muse’s question over the inclusion of Annette’s 
piece on Michael Snow and his response was as follows :- 

“because it was the most appropriate, and dominant, and wrongheaded american 
formalist (ps: the very opposite of say schklovskian formalism) response to 
mike snow's film, and the anthology, like e.g.the co-op cinema,wasn't there to 
impose one position but to problematize, in the case of the co-op, film, in the 
case of the anthology, film theory and criticism. i knew i could've written a 
far more appropriate and radical piece on wavelength, but chose not to. my 
"reply" in a sense was my piece on his films back and forth and standard time. 

“and this is not to ignite some old battles with annette as i have no intention 
of not getting along with her famously, same goes for her i am sure.” 

The book will be published on 11 April 2016 but is now available to pre-order. 
I will post further information, including details of related events, on 
Frameworks at a later date. 

Mark Webber

...

PETER GIDAL / FLARE OUT: AESTHETICS1966–2016
Edited by Mark Webber and Peter Gidal
The Visible Press, April 2016

“Flare Out: Aesthetics 1966–2016” is a collection of essays by Peter Gidal that 
includes “Theory and Definition of Structural/Materialist Film” and other texts 
on metaphor, narrative, and against sexual representation. Also discussed in 
their specificity are works by Samuel Beckett, Thérèse Oulton, Gerhard Richter 
and Andy Warhol. Throughout, Gidal’s writing attempts a political aesthetics, 
polemical as well as theoretical. One of the foremost experimental film-makers 
in Britain since the late 1960s, Peter Gidal was a central figure at the London 
Film-Makers’ Co-operative, and taught advanced film theory at the Royal College 
of Art. His previous books include "Andy Warhol: Films and Paintings (1971)”, 
“Understanding Beckett” (1986) and “Materialist Film” (1989).

“An essential point of access to the questions and considerations through which 
Peter Gidal has consistently fought for film – and vision itself – as a process 
of interrogation. This collection renews the agency of his primary question: 
‘What is it to view, how to view the unknown?’”
  (Stuart Comer, Museum of Modern Art, New York)

“Radical, spirited, provocative … Inspiring and invaluable, really. In here we 
find a welcome voice, singularly unpatronising, nuanced yet fearless in the 
face of the mind-narrowing opacity of ‘everyday life’.”
  (Cerith Wyn Evans)

ISBN 978-0-9928377-1-6 
Hardcover, 288 pages including 16pp images
Square-backed case, debossed cover and spine, ribbon marker, h/t bands
Price: £18 plus shipping

www.thevisiblepress.com
www.facebook.com/thevisiblepress
@thevisiblepress

> On 23 Feb 2016, at 12:00, frameworks-requ...@jonasmekasfilms.com wrote:
> 
> Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 11:00:15 -0500
> From: John Muse 
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List 
> Subject: [Frameworks] Annette Michelson and Peter Gidal
> Message-ID: <166d25f7-8dd8-4be7-a6e0-1d42d832c...@sonic.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> 
> Can someone briefly explain--or point me to resources that explain--how it is 
> that in 1976 Peter Gidal can include Annette Michelson's June 1971 Artforum 
> piece "Towards Snow" in his Structural Film Anthology when in the September 
> 1971 issue of Artforum he excoriates her and this piece in particular, 
> beginning a letter to the editor, 
> 
>> In a remarkably wrongheaded piece, Annette Michelson, in the june Artforum 
>> asserts, with reference to Michael Snow's film, Wavelength, "Snow has 
>> redefined filmic space as that of action.
> 
> "… remarkably wrongheaded…" is certainly polemical, but there she is in the 
> anthology.  What happened? Was her response to him persuasive?   
> 
> I'll take my answer off the air.  
> 
> j/PrM

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