[Frameworks] FrameWorks Digest, Vol 5, Issue 29

[Beverly O'Neill]

Dear Mr. Daressa,  Thank you so much for this posting.

Beverly O'Neill
On Oct 15, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Lawrence Daressa wrote:

> 
> I'd like to add the perspective of a non-profit film distributor for the
> last 42 years (admittedly not of experimental work) in the hope it may
> have some relevance to the thread over Ubu. I warn readers in advance
> that this will be dry, technical and decidedly mundane.  .
> 
> I do not share David Tetzlaff's enthusiasm for the "Free!" market
> economics propounded by Wired Magazine entrepreneur and internet guru,
> Chris Anderson. There is, in reality, no consensus that making films
> available for free increases or decreases net sales or revenues, only
> inconclusive anecdotal reports indicative of both. Almost all
> generalizations about the internet, including Anderson's, are false
> because there is no one internet, but many "internets."  Experimental
> filmmakers need to ask some questions about their internet before they
> take the leap into "free" distribution; their answers will necessarily
> not be the same. 
> 
> 1. First, how important is it for me to be paid for my work? Am I
> looking for income, exposure or both? 
> 2. How will people learn about my film? There's no point posting a film
> on the web if nobody knows it's there. One of the most common but
> baseless assumptions about the web is that there is a significant
> correlation between accessibility and viewership.
> 3. Following from that, how many viewers will Ubu attract to my film
> which I wouldn't reach through other avenues? This doesn't need
> guesswork. What are the metrics (visitors, bounces, viewing time, etc)
> for Ubu titles like your own?  
> 4. How likely is it that these viewers will want to pay $24.95 to own a
> DVD of my film? How many simply want to screen it one (or more) times or
> pirate it from Ubu? Here a degree of humility is called for. .
> 4. An interesting option: would they pay $2.99 to rent it from an
> internet content aggregator (eg i-Tunes or Amazon)?
> 5. How many schools and museums would purchase a DVD and/or streaming
> license for my film(s)? How much would they pay (up to $500.)? 
> 6. How likely are they simply to embed a link to Ubu in students'
> on-line syllabi or buy a home video DVD for $24.95?
> 
> Most films, experimental or otherwise, have no opportunity to develop
> visibility in the present content clutter of cyberspace and, as a
> consequence, no chance to generate significant income. In these cases,
> the choice is clear because there are no  alternatives: put your work
> everywhere you can and give it away for free in the hope that someone
> will stumble across it (the fancy name for this is hyper-syndication.)
> 
> For the small number of experimental makers who do have "name
> recognition" and  generate significant income from screenings at
> colleges (live or classroom) and museums the picture is more murky..
> There is no question that free distribution results in significant
> seepage into and dilution of consumer and institutional markets. - more
> than a  50% loss. And it's perfectly legal. So, a filmmaker has to ask:
> am I willing to risk that the sales I may gain by free delivery will
> exceed the ones I definitely will lose as a result of it? 
> 
> There have, of course, always been viable alternatives to Ubu for
> promoting experimental film to its core constituency. Distributors,
> festivals, exhibition programs, journals on and offline have been around
> for years, though they are not available to most filmmakers again
> because of content glut. These organs are perfectly adequate for
> reaching the institutional market because, to a large extent, they
> determine that market.
> 
> Many filmmakers use free sites as a deliberate part of an internet
> marketing strategy, essentially as "bait" to lure (or if you prefer
> attract or introduce) viewers to other paid (monetized) works.  This can
> simply means posting one short title on You Tube in the hope that
> viewers will want to see more of your oeuvre. Another use of free
> content is for "preview" streaming during a limited window, for example,
> around high-visibility events like a festival or, now, embedded in an
> online journal reviews. 30 days is usually a long enough window. Again,
> the effect on sales pro and con is unclear.
> 
> Ubu could actually play a constructive role in this regard, though the
> creator of its eponym would roll over in his pataphysical grave. Ubu
> could offer both free and monetized content (or links to it) from the
> same site, using open source, e-commerce functionality. Filmmakers could
> then decide for themselves if and when they wanted their work to be
> freely available. 
> 
> Now for the really boring part: a final comment on the much-vexed
> "intellectual property" debate. Copyright is enshrined in common law and
> the US Constitution as a way for intellectual workers to earn a living
> from their labor and hence continue to produce it.  (In 1789, artists
> and authors weren't tenured professors - as most still aren't.)
> Copyright gives authors the right to determine who may make copies of
> their work and to receive a royalty from those sales. There is an
> exemption, the Fair Use Doctrine, which permits use of "limited
> portions" of a work to "comment on" or "quote" but not "copy," that is
> act as a substitute for that work. Fair Use allows for inclusion of
> copyrighted content only if that use is "transformative," that is could
> not be used to substitute for the original work. 
> 
> Certain Fair Use internet fundamentalists have tried to broaden this
> exemption to cover any screening, in whole or in part, of a copyrighted
> work in a non-commercial venue, eg. a classroom, an online course, a
> museum or  Ubuweb, I suppose. They claim this would constitute a
> transformative use even if the film were made explicitly for educational
> or artistic viewing. I suspect this betrays a recrudescent "printist"
> bias which associates the moving image with crass commercial
> entertainment. One can hardly imagine an academic incorporating an
> entire novel in a critical study of that novel as a "fair use." In any
> case, this argument is widely considered to have little legal merit; it
> is being advanced simply as a budget-cutting expedient to make artists
> rather than students, faculty or taxpayers pay for educational
> materials. The assumption is filmmakers are so disorganized they won't
> be able to do anything about it; in this regard, as in so many others,
> they are mistaken.
> 
> Larry Daressa
> California Newsreel. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lawrence Daressa
> California Newsreel
> 500 Third Street, #505
> San Francisco, CA  94107
> phone: 415.284.7800 x302
> fax: 415.284.7801
> lgd at newsreel.org
> www.newsreel.org 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: frameworks-bounces at jonasmekasfilms.com
> [mailto:frameworks-bounces at jonasmekasfilms.com] On Behalf Of
> frameworks-request at jonasmekasfilms.com
> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 10:01 AM
> To: frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> Subject: FrameWorks Digest, Vol 5, Issue 29
> 
> Send FrameWorks mailing list submissions to
> 	frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	frameworks-request at jonasmekasfilms.com
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	frameworks-owner at jonasmekasfilms.com
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of FrameWorks digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: UbuWeb...HACKED! (David Tetzlaff)
>   2. Re: UbuWeb...HACKED! (David Tetzlaff)
>   3. Re: UbuWeb...HACKED! (Shelly Silver)
>   4. Re: UbuWeb...HACKED! (Mark Toscano)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:09:10 +0000
> From: David Tetzlaff <djtet53 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID: <261245DD-D0EB-40FF-8149-11A16DDAD594 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
> 
> I usually find Anna Biller's posts to list to be thoughtful and sharp  
> whether I agree with them or not. But the msg. below makes me wonder  
> if Matt Helme is spoofing Ms. Biller's email address:
> 
>> If they really cared and
>> wanted to support experimental film they could buy an inexpensive
>> Brakhage DVD on Amazon and have it shipped to them internationally,
>> and then Marilyn Brakhage could make a dollar or two or fifty cents
>> which would be nice.
> 
> Of course, 'they' do buy the DVDs. What is missing from the discussion  
> of film-art-economics an analysis of how audiences for experimental  
> work come to exist -- what has to occur in the life of an individual  
> to make them want to see experimental films, rent experimental prints,  
> buy experimental DVDs. How is an appreciation for this out-of-the- 
> mainstream work acquired, and how does it grow and expand? Very few  
> people are going to buy that 'inexpensive' Brakhage DVD unless they  
> have some acquaintance with Brakhage. And how do people in 'the  
> sticks' get such an acquaintance? By things like UbuWeb and Karagarga  
> where they can try things out. _Pirates buy more content_ because  
> they've had a path to explore their inquisitiveness within their  
> financial means, develop the taste and appreciation for free that are  
> the pre-conditions for making any kind of financial investment.
> 
> Virtually every form of modern cultural production works this way --  
> first one's free kid, then you pay when you want more and better. The  
> clearest example being the relationship between radio airplay and  
> recording sales in pop music, but it's true (if in somewhat diluted  
> form) in other mediums as well.
> 
>> If no one pays for anything and everyone insists on getting  
>> everything for free,
> 
> But that is not the case...
> 
>> we will ONLY have the corporations and the work they produce,  
>> because no one else will be able to afford to produce anything.
> 
> Which brings up the question, 'how is anyone able to afford to produce  
> anything NOW?' And the answer is NOT, 'because of the income generated  
> by coop rentals and/or print/dvd sales.' If we ask 'what are the  
> economics of being an experimental filmmaker?' we immediately confront  
> the fact that the work itself has little direct market value due to  
> the lack of auratic status inherent in it's mechanical  
> reproducability. AFAIK, no one has ever made a living from the  
> receipts of experimental films. The economic value of such filmmaking  
> has always resided in the notoriety it brings to the maker, the kind  
> of opportunities for other channels of income opened by having one's  
> work circulated, noticed, appreciated. These include the ability to  
> obtain grants and other subsidies, to obtain academic positions, and  
> to increase the value of creative work the artist may do in more  
> auratic forms. Matthew Barney is the master of the latter, but I'm  
> sure Michael Snow's sculptures are worth more because he's Michael Snow.
> 
> We may like this situation or not (I'd rather things worked  
> differently myself) but that's how it is, has been, and is likely to  
> be. Internet forms like UbuWeb don't change that basic equation.
> 
> I too think it's nice if Marilyn gets some royalty payments, but  
> she'll more in the long run the more people know who Stan was and what  
> his work was like, which doesn't happen by magic. And since 'Cats  
> Cradle' and 'Window Water...' are on the DVD I wonder if Jane Brakhage  
> or Carolee Schneemann are getting a cut, and if not, where's the moral  
> economy in that?
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:57:56 +0000
> From: David Tetzlaff <djtet53 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID: <D7149978-BFE3-47AB-AF73-27D50A366917 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
> 
> Anna Biller wrote:
> 
>> The internet creates a sense of flattened relativism in which  
>> everything loses its context and sense of scale and history.
> 
> As an example she cites:
> 
>> the way [people] use YouTube and Facebook to select works and share  
>> them, almost as if their selection of the work is the same as making  
>> the work.
> 
> This is the sort of critique of postmodern culture that comes out of  
> Fred Jameson's 'Culture of Late Capitalism' essay, or Baudrillard's  
> 'Ecstacy of Communication.' I think this does occur, and I do find it  
> worrisome. I have seen video blogs consisting of nothing but  
> selections of other clips from around the web that I think qualify as  
> works of art because of the genuine creativity, amount of work, and  
> the effective aesthetic results of the choices made in pulling clips  
> together and establishing connections/collisions between them. But  
> such examples are rare and I do see a lot of the Jamesonian flattening  
> Anna notes.
> 
> But...
> 
> This is not what people mean when they say 'viewing a work is as  
> creative as making one.' First of all, that's phrased as hyperbole.  
> The 'is' is too definitive and universal, and 'as creative as'  
> indicates a false equality. It would be more accurate to say 'Viewing  
> is usually an act that involves a significant exercise of creativity  
> on the part of the viewer.' This is basically the 'active audience'  
> thesis that drives Cultural Studies. My own conclusion is that this  
> sort of active engagement, the affectless pomo reflecting screen, and  
> a more Frankfurt School ideological transmission all occur in our  
> culture side by side.
> 
> The active audience thesis stems from basic principles of semiotics.  
> The work of art is an object, with elements that act as symbols. These  
> symbols have no intrinsic meaning. They must be assembled, interpreted  
> and engaged by whoever perceives them. There is a lot of wiggle-room  
> in this process. So the mute object only becomes a meaningful work of  
> art once someone 'reads' it, and invests meaning into it, which is  
> inevitably a sort of indirect dialogic process. Academic studies like  
> Henry Jenkins' 'Textual Poachers' may overstate the case, but there's  
> too much evidence for the basic thesis to dismiss it entirely.
> 
> And certainly, experimental film is a form that engenders active  
> engagements. I'd guess for most folks on this list, early encounters  
> with experimental work yielded a good share of 'WTF?' reactions,  
> followed by struggles to parse the text, leading to a variety of  
> interpretations rooted in part in each viewer's unique life experiences.
> 
> Perhaps some UbuWeb users wind up engaging the clips there in the  
> worst sort of YouTube reflecting-screen pomo fascination. But that's  
> hardly Ubu's fault. Ubu has clearly been a portal by which a  
> significant number of people who would not otherwise been exposed to  
> avant garde work have found their way to some knowledge/interest/ 
> appreciation. As Jeanne Liotta noted, in the long run that benefits  
> our 'community' as a whole, and we all can benefit individually from  
> the health in that community.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:27:29 -0400
> From: Shelly Silver <silvernyc at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID: <BC95A373-8EE8-47F9-B495-6572F22312FB at earthlink.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
> 
> 'there is no such thing as intellectual property'
> godard
> 
> alas, his films are distributed by the most stingy of distributors  
> (less to do with his choice but his financing at the time)
> 
> i think artists have far more to lose from copyright laws and the like  
> then to gain. we're just brainwashed to not see it so (akin to the  
> poor identifying with the rich, with the logic, 'one day when i am  
> rich...')
> 
> free culture:
> http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/
> 
> best,
> shelly
> 
> 
> On Oct 15, 2010, at 6:09 AM, David Tetzlaff wrote:
> 
>> I usually find Anna Biller's posts to list to be thoughtful and sharp
>> whether I agree with them or not. But the msg. below makes me wonder
>> if Matt Helme is spoofing Ms. Biller's email address:
>> 
>>> If they really cared and
>>> wanted to support experimental film they could buy an inexpensive
>>> Brakhage DVD on Amazon and have it shipped to them internationally,
>>> and then Marilyn Brakhage could make a dollar or two or fifty cents
>>> which would be nice.
>> 
>> Of course, 'they' do buy the DVDs. What is missing from the discussion
>> of film-art-economics an analysis of how audiences for experimental
>> work come to exist -- what has to occur in the life of an individual
>> to make them want to see experimental films, rent experimental prints,
>> buy experimental DVDs. How is an appreciation for this out-of-the-
>> mainstream work acquired, and how does it grow and expand? Very few
>> people are going to buy that 'inexpensive' Brakhage DVD unless they
>> have some acquaintance with Brakhage. And how do people in 'the
>> sticks' get such an acquaintance? By things like UbuWeb and Karagarga
>> where they can try things out. _Pirates buy more content_ because
>> they've had a path to explore their inquisitiveness within their
>> financial means, develop the taste and appreciation for free that are
>> the pre-conditions for making any kind of financial investment.
>> 
>> Virtually every form of modern cultural production works this way --
>> first one's free kid, then you pay when you want more and better. The
>> clearest example being the relationship between radio airplay and
>> recording sales in pop music, but it's true (if in somewhat diluted
>> form) in other mediums as well.
>> 
>>> If no one pays for anything and everyone insists on getting
>>> everything for free,
>> 
>> But that is not the case...
>> 
>>> we will ONLY have the corporations and the work they produce,
>>> because no one else will be able to afford to produce anything.
>> 
>> Which brings up the question, 'how is anyone able to afford to produce
>> anything NOW?' And the answer is NOT, 'because of the income generated
>> by coop rentals and/or print/dvd sales.' If we ask 'what are the
>> economics of being an experimental filmmaker?' we immediately confront
>> the fact that the work itself has little direct market value due to
>> the lack of auratic status inherent in it's mechanical
>> reproducability. AFAIK, no one has ever made a living from the
>> receipts of experimental films. The economic value of such filmmaking
>> has always resided in the notoriety it brings to the maker, the kind
>> of opportunities for other channels of income opened by having one's
>> work circulated, noticed, appreciated. These include the ability to
>> obtain grants and other subsidies, to obtain academic positions, and
>> to increase the value of creative work the artist may do in more
>> auratic forms. Matthew Barney is the master of the latter, but I'm
>> sure Michael Snow's sculptures are worth more because he's Michael  
>> Snow.
>> 
>> We may like this situation or not (I'd rather things worked
>> differently myself) but that's how it is, has been, and is likely to
>> be. Internet forms like UbuWeb don't change that basic equation.
>> 
>> I too think it's nice if Marilyn gets some royalty payments, but
>> she'll more in the long run the more people know who Stan was and what
>> his work was like, which doesn't happen by magic. And since 'Cats
>> Cradle' and 'Window Water...' are on the DVD I wonder if Jane Brakhage
>> or Carolee Schneemann are getting a cut, and if not, where's the moral
>> economy in that?
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Mark Toscano <fiddybop at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Message-ID: <163860.80035.qm at web34201.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
> 
> I agree with Steve here, but the big difference is that VDB is working
> with the artists directly, and has their permission (and probably even
> encouragement) to post those clips.  It's part of VDB's promotion of the
> work, and is a great way to get a sense of something in order to decide
> whether or not to show it.  Lux and Light Cone do the same.
> 
> I'm all for the access aspect of ubu in a way, but the artists are
> generally not being given a choice of how their work is to be
> represented.  It's funny that some people here seem to think that the
> artists are just being obstructionist about the ubu thing.  I think a
> LOT of artists would happily provide work to them to host (perhaps with
> reasonable restrictions or stipulations), but aside from a few examples
> I know of (Andy Lampert, Pete Rose, etc.), ubu is not seeking that
> dialogue with the artists.  (And in Pete's case, he provided the work
> himself.)  Again, my favorite example of abomination here is David
> Rimmer's Surfacing on the Thames, which is a ludicrously unwatchable
> video accompanied by a borrowed text explaining how subtle and beautiful
> the film is.
> 
> And I agree that those who have been touched by a work do have certain
> rights "to" it, but they're not equal to the artist's rights.  They're
> not even in the same broad category.  When someone is the sole author of
> a film, why don't they have control over whether they want to change or
> destroy it?  We may not like it as viewers/historians/whatever, but the
> artist may hate it for the work to continue to exist.  Three of Bob
> Nelson's early films are unrecoverable because he destroyed them.
> Fragments remain.  He's mildly regretful about one, maybe two of them,
> but ultimately it's not a big deal to him.  Thom Andersen wanted to show
> one of them (Superspread) in a Cal Arts class once, and I had to tell
> him Nelson destroyed it.  He was really bummed ("wow.... i really liked
> that movie and it had a big impact on me").  I told Nelson what he said,
> and he said, "huh.  well, maybe I shouldn't have destroyed it."
> 
> Over many years, Stanley Kubrick did everything he could to accumulate
> and destroy all surviving prints of his first feature, Fear and Desire.
> Of course people were still eager to see it, if not more so because of
> this action.  When a print turned up unexpectedly at George Eastman
> House in the '90s or so, they preserved it and planned a NYC screening.
> (Note - Kubrick did not own the rights to it, but I'm talking more about
> artist's rights here.)  Kubrick got in touch with them and very
> emphatically tried to get them to not show it.  If memory serves, they
> didn't, and they made a specific arrangement with Kubrick regarding
> how/when they would show the film (at least while he was still alive -
> in-house at GEH only, to researchers and in public screenings at their
> theater only).  Some time after Kubrick died, they started loaning it
> outside GEH.
> 
> I'm imagining a similar scenario with ubu - Ken Jacobs tells them to
> stop hosting his files, they counter-offer something, perhaps that
> they'll stream them only, no downloads, Ken perhaps agrees, everyone's
> in accordance (enough to keep going, anyway).
> 
> I don't think the artist has final say, but only from a practical
> standpoint more than a moral one.  Once something is out there, people
> WILL bootleg it.  I can tell without doubt that the Awful Backlash video
> on ubu is clearly lifted from a digibeta that I made at a lab to provide
> the film to German TV for them to use an excerpt for a short piece on
> Bob Nelson a few years ago.  And the text accompanying it is one that I
> used AS A JOKE for the Oberhausen program in 2006.  Which leads to my
> main beef with ubu's film section - the lazy "curating".  
> 
> I've been following their site pretty much since it began, way before
> the film/video section existed.  They've always had a fairly strong
> curatorial identity and I know they worked with artists on some amount
> of their content.  But when the film section came along, it was clearly
> just shit trolled on the internet and dumped in a pile for users to sift
> through, with no regard to quality, presentation, or curatorial vision.
> Seems to me that everything about that section of the site is just lazy
> and passive.  Talk about viewer's/curator's rights - curating comes with
> certain responsibilities if you're going to claim those rights.
> 
> Bottom line - I think it would at least be respectful of ubu to attempt
> to reach filmmakers about hosting their work, because I do think they'd
> get more yes than no.  Their 'hall of shame' thing was petty, stupid,
> and uninformed - good they dumped it a while back.  If an artist doesn't
> want their stuff up on ubu, then ubu should take it down.  Why is that a
> big deal?  It doesn't mean that film is suddenly completely removed from
> public view.  It just means it's no longer being made available without
> the artist's permission on a site at questionable quality, and if the
> artist isn't comfortable with that, they shouldn't be vilified for it.
> 
> And note that none of what I talked about here had to do with financial
> gain.
> 
> Mark Toscano
> 
> 
> --- On Fri, 10/15/10, Steve Polta <stevepolta at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> From: Steve Polta <stevepolta at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
> To: "Experimental Film Discussion List" <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Date: Friday, October 15, 2010, 5:43 AM
> 
> It is my understanding that the advent of exp. film on DVD (e.g.
> Brakhage) has negatively impacted the film co-ops' circulation of work,
> presumably due to schools' use of DVD in the classroom as opposed to
> renting films. This not only diminishes the income paid to filmmakers by
> co-ops but also impacts the viability of the co-ops.
> 
> Speaking as a curator, I can say that online access to preview copies of
> artists' work (even in excerpt/sample form) greatly facilitates the
> curatorial process and has definitely led to me including new-to-me
> work/artists in programs I have curated for San Francisco Cinematheque.
> (For the record, these rentals have always been acquired from artists or
> distributors and have always been paid.)
> 
> Regarding Beverly O'Neill's reference to the distribution co-ops'
> participation in this process, it's notable that Video Data Bank
> (VDB) *does* provide public access to samples of artists' work. Again,
> speaking as a curator, I can say that this service has led directly to
> rentals and exhibition. Providing this access would be a wonderful
> service a distributor could provide its artists. I know it's easier said
> than done. I would encourage any artists in a position to effect a
> positive change in this area to organize and encourage this service from
> their distributors.
> 
> Steve Polta
> 
> --- On Thu, 10/14/10, Beverly O'Neill <bevon1 at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
> From: Beverly O'Neill <bevon1 at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
> To: "Experimental Film Discussion List" <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
> Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 9:41 PM
> 
> Dear Frameworkers, ?UBU always sparks
> livelihood anxieties in me, not for my generation which has been around
> for 45 years of filmmaking, but for those who are beginning to make work
> or struggling with mid-career anxieties. ?The scarcity of venues,
> grants, awards, faculty positions, -- well, everyone here knows what
> goes on that list. ?UBU plays a very minor role, yeah/nay, in that
> equation. ?Just trying to think of ways to rekindle some of the spirit
> we all felt when Canyon and Anthology began. ? ?It would be wonderful if
> we could (Frameworkers, co-ops, Anthology whatever) if we could revive
> the Maya Deren lifetime achievement award and present it annually to
> several media makers. ?Suppose the co-op, I'm thinking of Canyon because
> I know them, ?set up a way to digitize work and took a % ?from the sales
> of DVDs. ?Could we broaden our focus and support for emerging exhibition
> groups by watching previews on-line (via Youtube/whatever) of new
> pieces, and offer critical feedback. ? ?The diversity of experiences
> and knowledge represented on this list has the capacity to imagine and
> realize some viable options that would enrich the culture younger
> artists work in. ?Frameworks serves an invaluable role in this new era.
> ?Using new tools what else can we do.?All props to this list.Beverly O'
> ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> 
> 
> End of FrameWorks Digest, Vol 5, Issue 29
> *****************************************
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks