Great observations, and I have in fact structured my teaching of film studies along the lines of the art history model. Just as any worthy art history instructor speaks not just to the value of experiencing the original work of art but also to the fundamental differences and deficiencies in the reproduction, I too stress the distinctions between experiencing a film as it was intended to be seen and its digital reproduction. This is not to ignore the fact that commercial cinema was essentially an art form of reproduction or that what we are seeing when we watch a film print of any experimental or avant-garde work is also very likely a reproduction of the original. But a certain deference and respect to the intended exhibition format must be maintained and accommodated whenever possible. Tim
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:28:57 -0800 From: li...@rodeofilmco.com To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] canyon in the news (bad news dept) I think David's point about identifying value is very important. Something I have always wondered is whether this level of debate concerning format and viewing exisits in other genres or other art forms. Do art history teachers and students limit their study only to paintings and sculptures to which they have direct access? I don't mean to sound snarky with this question- but rather to look at other systems that seem to be doing okay. I want to see 16mm film exhibition survive, and I fully respect artists who choose not to digitize their work. But looking at other art forms, I wonder if it is time for experimental cinema to follow a similar path and look to museums to archive and exhibit original 16mm film? We don't bat an eye at the thought of seeing paintings reproduced in books, on posters, or on slides- in fact we can learn a great deal from them. We understand that we are looking at a reproduction and not the original, and if we are drawn to the piece we look forward to someday seeing the original work- perhaps even go out of our way to see that original work. (There is a Rothko retrospective that just opened in Portland with lines to get in stretching around the block. I doubt there are many pieces in the show that couldn't be found in books or even on the internet- yet people clearly care about seeing the original work. Seeing reproductions of the work only has made demand greater) Couldn't the same art museum model work for most 16mm experimental film? Focus the energy on keeping top-notch projection in a few select venues and maintain pristine prints that don't rent out for $65? Use the advantages of digital to build and educate audiences, and turn 16mm exhibition into a destination or very special event? I am not saying this is ideal, or something I am advocating for. And obviously it would take some funds and at least a few eager institutions. But is it possible that the accessibility of 16mm prints of the great Avant Garde filmmakers is actually a hindrance? If you could rent an original Mark Rothko for $75 and show it to art history students every semester would that leave any excitement for the big traveling retrospective at the museum? confused as always... -matt ------------------------------- www.rodeofilmco.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
