[Frameworks] FrameWorks Digest, Vol 5, Issue 29
Sandra Maliga
neoreal at maliga.com
Wed Oct 20 14:16:26 CDT 2010
Yes, Thank you, Larry Daressa. I have often appreciated your
intelligence and clarity over the years and take this opportunity to
say so.
-- Sandy Maliga
On Oct 15, 2010, at 6:03 PM, Beverly O'Neill wrote:
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
More information about the FrameWorks
mailing list