[Frameworks] Response to Gene Youngblood

Wed Apr 1 05:36:42 UTC 2015

Please unsubscribe me from the list.  I thank everyone for the knowledge and
wisdom they have shared.

The current tone is unfortunate.  Perhaps people could email each other
privately or meet for coffee to discuss their differences?

I have very much appreciated all the knowledge that wisdom shared over the
years, thank you again to this generous community.

gisele

On 15-03-31 10:59 PM, "Cari Machet" <carimachet at gmail.com> wrote:

> listen i am NOT a white person i dont react with a smile when i am faced with
> someone that doesnt even think about humility and self critique
> 
> i would NEVER tell other people to 'calm down' it also lacks humility
> 
> i went to art school where thankfully i was taught the art of critique and
> self critique which i think is an incredible gift - may others find this
> profound tool or even remotely think about the concept
> 
> kelly you can also fuck off for playing the gender card and in such an
> offhanded way - disgusting and one of the many reasons i despise the very word
> feminist 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Elizabeth McMahon <elizmcmahon at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I apologize, in general, for whatever. I don't want to add to polemics that
>> disdain and dissuade an inclusive environment.  Like Sasha, I barely
>> contribute, to most listservs, for fear of attack and ridicule, and yet I did
>> apparently myself, however, depending on your POV, regarding her remarks
>> directed at Gene Youngblood, which really irked me, and I do not apologize
>> for them. I hope their tone was professional, but if not, then I was wrong. I
>> know I can be a smart ass, but I did have fundamental problems with Sasha's
>> public comments of Gene's remarks, and I make no apology for them.
>> 
>> Elizabeth McMahon
>> 
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 2:41 PM, chris bravo <iamdirect at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Saying that a film makes students want to commit suicide isn't a critique,
>>> its an offensive derogatory statement, which is directed not just towards
>>> the filmmaker, but towards her students especially.
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015, 1:27 PM Dave Tetzlaff <djtet53 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Chill out, people!
>>>> 
>>>> This is a Listserv. People write short posts quickly, and hit 'Send'.
>>>> "Rhetorical excess" comes with the territory as we dash off our thoughts
>>>> w/o reflecting deeply about whether our wording will read to others with
>>>> the meanings they had for us when they popped into our heads.
>>>> 
>>>> I took Sasha's OP as meant to advocate for films that have a sort of
>>>> perspective not-yet presented in the thread -- works one perhaps could call
>>>> more 'post-modern' engagements with culture and identity. I took the crack
>>>> about Wavelength as essentially tangential and polemic -- an observation
>>>> that many contemporary students are not much engaged with the aesthetic
>>>> concerns of that work. It's not clear whether Sasha's pique was directed at
>>>> Wavelength specifically or 'mid-century High modernism' in general -- i.e.
>>>> maybe all 'structural film' and/or Brakhage abstractions etc.?? Regardless,
>>>> intentionally or not, her language was destined to stir the pot, make some
>>>> folks feel poked with a stick, and fire off testy replies.
>>>> 
>>>> No film is beyond criticism, including observations that whatever it's
>>>> merits for other situations, it's a poor choice for a given programmer or
>>>> teacher's goals in addressing the specific audiences they have at hand.
>>>> Sasha's snark was phrased as too universal: seeming to suggest Wavelength
>>>> is no longer any good to ANY group of "curious, excited young artists".
>>>> But, indeed, I'm sure there ARE groups of "curious, excited young artists"
>>>> without a background in cinema who would find Wavelength alienating, at
>>>> least initially, and it's perfectly valid to pass on that film for an
>>>> introduction to experimental film in favor of something more immediately
>>>> engaging to the group at hand.
>>>> 
>>>> As Gene so pungently observed, the problem starts with the absurdity of
>>>> Donal's original query. First, the "3 films" concept makes no sense, since
>>>> experimental films range in length from a few minutes to several hours. (My
>>>> gag 3: Star Spangled to Death, Sleep, The Extravagent Shadows... no
>>>> intermissions or bathroom breaks!) Second, "essential" is just silly and
>>>> off-point. Unlike Hollywood films directed at mass audiences and respecting
>>>> a common set of conventions, experimental works are often very personal,
>>>> and incredibly varied in form and content. Thus, what works are and aren't
>>>> "essential" is not remotely universal, but conditional and contingent on
>>>> "for whom?" and "for what purpose?" Third, this variety and specificity
>>>> means trying to crowd-source a list of '3 essentials' is utter folly, that
>>>> can only lead to unproductive arguments if people play along.
>>>> 
>>>> In the thread OP, Donal didn't tell us anything about his own approach to
>>>> "the realm of the moving image" or what kinds of art practices and
>>>> aesthetics the folks attending the workshops will be "coming from". For all
>>>> we know, the attendees could all be middle-aged ceramicists or landscape
>>>> painters. Ultimately, he needs to pick works that speak to him in some way
>>>> he thinks will enable him to use them to engage 'noobs'. So it is with any
>>>> instance of programming films. The work must 'fit' the programmer, the
>>>> audience, and the purpose.
>>>> 
>>>> Given the lack of info in the query, responses have (as one would expect)
>>>> presumed teaching or exhibition situations with which the posters are
>>>> familiar: Andy and Gene spoke of their students; Sasha referred to YOUNG
>>>> ARTISTS. But I read the OP as posing an audience of experienced working
>>>> artists who presumably already have some sort of aesthetic perspective,
>>>> rather than the sort of student population that would sign up for a studies
>>>> course in experimental film.
>>>> 
>>>> Just as there is no universal "3 essential films", there is more than one
>>>> valid pedagogical approach to introducing noobs to experimental cinema.
>>>> Sometimes you want to ease folks in, showing work that has some familiar
>>>> elements. Meshes is probably the most widely used introduction to
>>>> experimental work, and over the decades so many of its elements have been
>>>> incorporated into pop culture (advertising, music video, etc.), and it's
>>>> subject matter (angst at gender roles and domesticity) is so enduring, that
>>>> it offers a variety of access points. That works. But for some groups being
>>>> introduced to experimental work, what I call 'deep end of the pool
>>>> pedagogy' can work as well or better  tossing the initiates into the
>>>> strangest water possible w/o a life-jacket, then tossing a safety line into
>>>> the trashing if it's not getting anywhere...
>>>> 
>>>> Andy and Gene speak of student appreciation of Wavelength, but under what
>>>> conditions? What courses have they taken before? Is Wavelength the FIRST
>>>> screening on the syllabus? Sasha's put-down seemed to me to posit
>>>> Wavelength as a poor choice for point-of-entry, not something not worth
>>>> screening at all, and I totally understand that. When I first taught
>>>> 'experimental' I screened it about half-way through the term, but found the
>>>> 'bang' too minimal for the screening time, and concluded any pedagogical
>>>> purpose I had for showing it was better served by something else. (E.g. I
>>>> kept <-->. A practical issue with Wavelength: depending on the sound system
>>>> and the volume settings, that audio wave CAN be a form of physical torture,
>>>> and we don't all have the kind of control of screening situations we'd
>>>> like.)
>>>> 
>>>> Gene overstates, or perhaps just lacks clarity, in his response to Sasha.
>>>> I'd agree that anyone teaching experimental film at the college level
>>>> should be able to present Wavelength in a way that activates student
>>>> "excitement and curiosity." But that's a far cry from saying that film will
>>>> engage those qualities in and of itself for any and all initiates w/o
>>>> proper introduction and framing, and farther still from making a case
>>>> Wavelength is among the best choices for an introduction in any given
>>>> setting. I know Sasha just a little bit from various conferences
>>>> back-in-the-day, and I'm quite confident she could teach Wavelength well if
>>>> someone tssked her to do so. I do understand how Gene would read Sasha's
>>>> off-hand jibe as 'Wavelength is so anachronistic, no one can make any good
>>>> use of it now with young people.' And if that's what she meant to say, and
>>>> seriously so... well, yeah, that would be pretty darn lame. But if we read
>>>> Listserv posts with charity, we might just take her point as '_I_ find a
>>>> lot of newer work more compelling than Wavelength, and so do the students
>>>> who wind up in my classes, so it doesn't work well as an introduction FOR
>>>> US, and i have a lot of choices that works a lot better for our situation.'
>>>> That's not laziness, cowardice, or betrayal. We have no idea how
>>>> challenging Sashs's students find It Wasn't Love, November, or A Little
>>>> Death to be, or in what ways, or how that sets up the rest of her course. I
>>>> don't know any of those pieces myself, and they're certainly not canon, so
>>>> Sasha may have come to them via diligent searching, loyalty to the ongoing
>>>> energy of avant-garde works, and courage in programming beyond the usual
>>>> suspects.
>>>> 
>>>> None of us are in a position to judge her harshly for her choices, or for
>>>> her opinion of Wavelength. But she's not in a position to assert Wavelength
>>>> is useless to other teaching situations. And I think both Sasha and Gene
>>>> know that perfectly well (they're both smart and know their stuff), and
>>>> this little kerfuffle would never occur in actual conversation, because
>>>> neither party really meant their words in the way they've been read.
>>>> 
>>>> So how about EVERYBODY apologize for anything that may have been taken as a
>>>> personal attack, or an over-reaching universal claim, and we try to make
>>>> something actually USEFUL out of this sorry-ass thread? Sashs's post had
>>>> some vague abbreviated points about why she finds the films she listed to
>>>> be useful introductions, and the posts on Wavelength make moves in a
>>>> similar direction. How 'bout we expand on that?
>>>> 
>>>> Thus, suggested discussion topic:
>>>> &bull Define an at least modestly specific audience of experimental film
>>>> beginners: background (age, experience, culture), interest in the subject,
>>>> ('makers'? 'scholars'? both?) and an at least modestly specific setting
>>>> (semester course? 3-day workshop? single presentation?
>>>> &bull Tell us what you would show this group as their FIRST experimental
>>>> film viewing experience. TRT not to exceed 60 minutes. (A single major
>>>> work, a program of related shorts - e.g. 'The films of Maya Deren', or a
>>>> diverse program of shorts.)
>>>> &bull Explain how the choice fits your passions, the group's interests and
>>>> tendencies, and the situation. What pedagogical values you find in the
>>>> work(s) you've chosen.
>>>> 
>>>> (I'd start, but i'm already late to an appt.!!)
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> FrameWorks mailing list
>>>> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
>>>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>> <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20150401/591019fc/attachment.html>