Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
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
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] Luke Fowler films at SVA Theatre New York - special screening invitation March 9
An Invitation to all FrameWorkers ... The Modern Institute and Artprojx Cinema presents: A Grammar for Listening (Parts 1 – 3) 16mm film and sound created in collaboration with sound artists Lee Patterson and Toshiya Tsunoda and composer Éric La Casa All Divided Selves by Luke Fowler Friday March 9 at 8.30pm and 9.30pm at SVA Theatre, 333 West 23rd Street (between 8th and 9th Avenues), New York, NY 10011 ENTRY IS FREE. RSVP artprojxcin...@gmail.com to confirm which screening or both. more details: Luke Fowler Friday 9 March 2012 A Grammar for Listening (Parts 1 – 3) 8.30pm Silence dominated the experimental film of the 1960s. Sound or musical accompaniment was often dismissed as illustrative, manipulative or redundant. Instead, a return to experiments of early cinema concentrated on rhythm, structure and material and thereby considered film’s potential as a unique art form with its own grammar. Prior to this tendency in film, composer John Cage had foregrounded silence within his 1953 composition ‘4’33’. Purging concerts of conventional musical content, he allowed the sounds from outside to come inside and become the focus of the audience’s attention. These foundational ideas have led to a burgeoning music scene focused on environmental sound and field recording. Outlining some of the complexities between film and sound, Luke Fowler’s film cycle ‘A Grammar for Listening (parts 1-3)’ attempts to confront these contradictions through the possibilities afforded by 16mm film and digital sound recording devices. These three films, created in collaboration with sound artists Lee Patterson and Toshiya Tsunoda and composer Éric La Casa respectively, provide a series of collaborations and meditations on the issues raised, and propose a number of tentative navigations through. All Divided Selves 9.30pm The social and cultural revolutions of the 1960s were spearheaded by the charismatic, guru-like figure of Glasgow born psychiatrist R.D. Laing. In his now classic text ‘The Politics of Experience’ (1967), Laing argued that normality entailed adjusting ourselves to the mystification of an alienating and depersonalizing world. Thus, those society labels as ‘mentally ill’ are in fact ‘hyper-sane’ travelers, conducting an inner voyage through aeonic time. The film concentrates on archival representations of Laing and his colleagues as they struggled to acknowledge the importance of considering social environment and disturbed interaction in institutions as significant factors in the aetiology of human distress and suffering. All Divided Selves reprises the vacillating responses to these radical views and the less forgiving responses to Laing’s latter career shift from well-recognized psychiatrist to celebrity poet. A dense, engaging and lyrical collage — Fowler weaves archival material with his own filmic observations — marrying a dynamic soundtrack of field recordings with recorded music by Éric La Casa, Jean-Luc Guionnet and Alasdair Roberts. Luke Fowler Luke Fowler (b. 1978) is an artist, filmmaker and musician based in Glasgow. His films, a collage of found footage and Fowler’s own recordings, have documented the work of British counter cultural figures including Scottish psychiatrist R. D. Laing and composer Cornelius Cardew. Through his collaboration with experimental musicians Toshia Tsunoda, Lee Patterson and Eric la Casa, he creates dynamic soundtracks of original compositions and field recordings for these works. His new feature-length film ‘All Divided Selves’ is the third work to take up the legacy of radical psychiatrist R.D. Laing. It concentrates on archival representations of Laing and his colleagues as they struggled to acknowledge the importance of considering social environment as significant factors in human distress and suffering. The film premiered at Anthology Film Archive in New York in November 2011 and has been screened as part of the Berlin Film Festival this year. The Modern Institute will be making a solo presentation of Luke’s new photographic prints at the Independent Fair in New York in March. His recent solo exhibitions include Inverleith House, Edinburgh; ‘All Divided Selves’, CCS Bard Galleries, Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York; Serpentine Gallery, London; ‘A Grammar For Listening’, The Modern Institute, Glasgow; and ‘Warriors’, X Initiative, New York; Kunsthaus Zürich, Zürich. Forthcoming solo exhibitions include ‘The Poor Stockinger’ at The Hepworth, Wakefield. He participated in ‘Cornelius Cardew and the Freedom of Listening’, CAC Bretigny; ‘British Art Show 7: In The Days Of The Comet’, Nottingham Contemporary, Nottingham and The Hayward Gallery, London; ‘Radical Nature’, Barbican Art Gallery, London; ‘The Associates’, DCA, Dundee; ‘What You See is Where You’re At’, The Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art, Edinburgh; Kunsthaus Zürich, Zürich; and ‘Younger than Jesus’, New Museum, New York;
[Frameworks] Call for Entries | Alchemy Film and Moving Image Festival 2012
CALL FOR ENTRIES Alchemy Film and Moving Image Festival 26th to 28th October 2012 Hawick, Scottish Borders We are now inviting entries for short artists’ films, moving image works and feature films. This year’s festival will be ‘traversing the wild’ exploring our relationship with the natural world, how we move through the landscape, how landscape might move within us. Our open submissions strand has a focus on experimental short film and moving image work, though narrative films that show strong relevance to our theme are also most welcome. Submit online at http://www.alchemyfilmfestival.org.uk/2012_submissions/ Submissions are free and we welcome all film and digital video formats. Submission deadline: 10 June 2012 Please help us by spreading the word among your networks. http://www.facebook.com/alchemyfilmfestival http://www.alchemyfilmfestival.org.uk All the best, Richard Ashrowan rich...@ashrowan.com Web: www.ashrowan.com Blog: http://richardashrowan.tumblr.com Alchemy: www.alchemyfilmfestival.org.uk ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
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
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
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
[Frameworks] Spanish Expanded Cinema this Friday 3/9 at Millennium
* Please join us on Friday for Tejido Conectivo, an evening of multi-projection compositions from two visiting artists from Barcelona. * [image: Inline image 3] *Luis Macias* and *Adriana Vila* present a night of expanded cinema focusing on three converging threads: found footage performances, light environments created through film loops,* and movie-less projection... * www.tejidoconectivo.wordpress.com Friday March 9th, 8pm. Millennium Film Workshop 66 E 4th St. NYC 10003 mail.jpeg___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] experimental film in the art world
Two oblique tangents to this interesting discussion: Conceptual art in the 1960s was an attempt to interrupt the museum/gallery artworld's expectation of a physical object or performance event. What the conceptual artists discovered after a while was that their reputation (suitably documented) became the start of economic exchange: what would get you grants, fellowships, commissions, etc. Performance artists learned the value of recording their performances so there was a precious document of their event. Some commercial galleries, such as Castelli, got their start by showing new young outrageous artists who had no objects to sell: typically unique and non-portable installations. Once established as the new hip important gallery, salable objects appeared on the walls. Some artists who originally worked in mass reproduction (e.g. Barbara Kruger) learned to do their schtick with one of a kind salable objects. It was rather common in some experimental film circles for makers to screen bw or color reversal film as original. In that sense, there really was a unique object, for which copies could only be inferior, and which incidentally changed/wore out with each projection and passing time. Chuck Kleinhans ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] experimential film in the art world
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
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
