[Frameworks] Quo Vadis Celluloid?

[Anna Biller]

On Aug 25, 2011, at 7:20 AM, Fred Camper wrote:

> Anna,
> 
> I'm sorry if you find that I've misrepresented you statements. And  
> sure, I used words  from yours to make different points, without  
> specifically saying "Anna said this" but also without making clear  
> that you didn't exactly mean what I was ?answering,? so, sorry for my  
> lack of clarity.

It's not lack of clarity I have a problem with, it's  completely altering what I said.

> I have no general problem with any artist saying "I  
> prefer the way medium X does thing Y, and thing Y is important to my  
> work, therefore I prefer medium X." I will, however, admit to being  
> bothered by the notions that blemishes on faces should be hidden, or  
> that the face of Jean Gabin is of some particular interest, but that's  
> a question of my own preferences, I guess.

You are again misquoting me. I never said blemishes on faces should be hidden or that the face of Jean Gabin holds particular interest. I was using those examples to explain something about how film works as opposed to video. And yes, you seem to have no problems stating your own preferences, you only have problems when others do.

> You have, meanwhile, totally misrepresented me. You quote me as  
> stating, "No one format or sub-format should be lauded for its own  
> sake." when what I actually wrote is ?...no one format or sub-format  
> should be lauded for its own sake, but rather, for how it might be  
> used.? That little bit at the end makes all the difference.

I was quoting you directly, not misrepresenting you. Leaving the end bit out is not a misrepresentation. Anyway, I'll get to that sentence later.

> I suspect  we are just not going to understand each other here. If I could only  
> make one point in this whole discussion, it would be that last one.  
> Anyone can like or dislike a particular look, a particular medium, a  
> particular format or sub-format, for whatever reason, but in my view,  
> it is only a successful work of art that gives that medium meaning,  
> and different artists can give a format or sub-format different  
> meanings, and that is my whole point, really, that no ?look,? no form  
> of film or video, is inherently meaningful in itself; their only truly  
> deep meanings come from the way artists use them.

I challenge you to name artists or works of art that artists think are meaningful only because they were shot on film. I further challenge you to try to completely separate the meaning of any work from the materials used. And maybe you can also tell us which artists make work in which the medium is meaningless to the work, and which critics are guilty of meaninglessly fetishizing or "lauding" inferior works just because they were shot on film.

> That's where the  magic happens for me, the intersection of the purposeful and  
> controlled work of an artist with a particular medium the artist is  
> using in a particular way, not with the medium itself in whatever  
> variety of uses different works have put it to.

What you are really saying (something you said last year or whatever on this list much more directly) is that you suspect that there are lots of artists out there who are mediocre and don't know what they're doing, and who should not be respected or think that their work is interesting or worth anything just because they work on film. But that issue has nothing whatever to do with film or video. It has to do with how good a work of art is.
> 
> I may not have stated things this way initially; the discussion here  
> has helped me clarify my thoughts.
> 
> I have no problem with any agreed on actual fetish practiced between  
> ?onsenting adults. But to take the metaphor further, a foot fetishist  
> is, in at least some cases, more interested in the foot itself than  
> the person it's attached to, the foot in isolation in other words. I  
> don't think it's the best idea to apply that attitude to media, so  
> that a particular look is liked or disliked in itself, separate from  
> the very different uses to which it has been and can be put.

I respectfully disagree with you here. I think that film (and every medium) has an intrinsic value, and that such an intrinsic value is evident in a film such as Cat's Cradle, where the medium is itself explored for its own qualities. I don't think you can separate a love of a medium from how it's used in a work. That film could not have been shot unless there was film. You say "should not be lauded for its own sake...but for how it might be used." Materials have always been an important part of any art practice, and are very  much so in experimental film and video.  If you are saying that what is important is simply capturing an image and that the tools are not important, then you are saying that film (and by extension all media) have no intrinsic value, but only extrinsic value (value as a finished work of art). But I would argue that the idea that materials have intrinsic value is a separate question from what the value of what a work is, and that such a notion leaves out pleasure, process, and indeed the materiality and reality of the finished work of art and how it's experienced.  The argument that materials have no intrinsic value is antithetical to the practice of art itself. The materials used are always part of the content of any work.

Mirriam Webster Dictionary:
sake:
1: END, PURPOSE <for the sake of argument>
2. A: the good, advantage, or enhancement of some entity (as an ideal) <free to pursue learning for its own sake -- M.S. Eisenhower>

intrinsic:
1 a: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing <the intrinsic worth of a gem> <the intrinsic brightness of a star>
 
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Value:
Intrinsic value has traditionally been thought to lie at the heart of ethics. Philosophers use a number of terms to refer to such value. The intrinsic value of something is said to be the value that that thing has “in itself,” or “for its own sake,” or “as such,” or “in its own right.” Extrinsic value is value that is not intrinsic...That which is extrinsically good is good, not (insofar as its extrinsic value is concerned) for its own sake, but for the sake of something else to which it is related in some way. Suppose that the extrinsic value of A can be traced to the intrinsic value of Z by way of B, C, D… Thus A is good (for example) because of B, which is good because of C, and so on, until we get to Y's being good because of Z; when it comes to Z, however, we have something that is good, not because of something else, but “because of itself,” i.e., for its own sake. In this sort of case, the values of A, B, …, Y are all parasitic on the value of Z. It is Z's value that contributes to the value there is in the world; A, B, …, Y contribute no value of their own.

> We are  all likely to do this to some degree, and I know I do, because we all  
> have tastes, but I don't believe in arguing from out specific tastes.  
> Staying stuck in our tastes will cut us off from appreciating a  
> variety of works and a variety of possibilities, in the same way that  
> a fetishist, is, at least in some cases and for some of the time, cut  
> off from the whole person.

You asked a question about what peoples' specific tastes were, and yet you say you don't believe in arguing about specific tastes. 
> 
> Thus I might agree that in general video projection usually looks  
> ?flatter? than film on film, but also find that these terms don't work  
> at all for particular video works, and/or, that some videos use that  
> ?flatness? beautifully. What I'm arguing is that there are no general  
> rules, only the particular uses which artists make of particular media.

No one is arguing with you here. 
> 
> At this point in our exchanges I am more amused and angered by the way  
> you translate my I thought careful argument about how for a particular  
> film I made I prefer the dimmer projection of super-8 on film to  
> bright video:

 If I express a preference for a softer film image as opposed to a sharper video image, then I am accused of all sorts of transgressions, including denouncing blemishes in all forms. But if Fred Camper prefers the dimmer projection of Super 8mm to bright video, he is simply entitled to his preferences.
> 
> ?Anyone who has tried to project Super 8mm on a big screen will  
> usually feel that the results are disappointing. The colors wash out  
> and the images can really get very indistinct. One can always play the  
> devil's advocate and say 'well, the ugly is really beautiful,' or 'I  
> like blurry washed out images, and anyone who disagrees has not  
> considered all the options,' but I think just in terms of courtesy  
> people should be able to speak in plain language and be understood.?
> 
> So, in your terms, then, ?dimmer? is always ?ugly?? More washed out  
> colors are always worse? Just like facial blemishes should be avoided?  

NO, NO and NO. I just think that everyone should have a right to express what they think looks better than something else without being docked for it. Anyway, most opinions about aesthetics are personal. No one sees or values images in the same way. I think that's always already understood.

> You think that we all agree as a matter of ?courtesy?

No. But I think that courtesy is also an intrinsic value and should be observed on the list.

> that sharp and  
> bright is ?usually? best?

I never said or implied that! I just don't think it's helpful to jump all over people for using a word such as "better,' when clearly such a word is almost always used to define one's subjective tastes. If one said, "X is always, objectively better than Y," then you would have a point. But no one has said that. People are only stating their impressions. If people don't feel safe expressing their subjective impressions, then a discussion can't really happen.

> That's sure what it sounds like, but these  
> ideas are, in my view, contradicted by the whole history of the field  
> this list is meant to discuss, experimental film.

Anyone who has followed this discussion can plainly see that I have only ever been serious and respectful in my posts, and that I have not made blanket statements of the kind you keep insisting I am making. I'm leaving the discussion now. 
> 
> 
> Fred Camper
> Chicago
> 
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20110825/83961774/attachment.html