[Frameworks] 16fps 16mm projectors?

[Francisco Torres]

16fps... The guy sure knew how to be a contrarian.

''Warhol wasn't sufficiently concerned with the technical side of
things...'' To say the least.
As in - "How come your camera doesn't make any noise?'' :)

2015-08-07 14:12 GMT-04:00 Dave Tetzlaff <djtet53 at gmail.com>:

> > It is in fact 'Sleep' that we'll be showing in Austin, TX in October;
> I'm not hopeful that I'll be able to find two functioning 16fps projectors
> locally... I got an email from someone encouraging me to instead use four
> projectors, as it would cut the screening time in half.
>
> So...Why two instead of one?
>
> > Warhol would have been interested in the creative misuse of the
> apparatus, and in the footage being submitted to and deformed by norms
> enforced by mass-production and standardization.
>
> Would it not be within the spirit of 'Sleep' then, not only to have the
> viewers endure the wait for reel changes, but to rewind each reel and put
> it back in the can before threading the next one? I mean, given the TRT and
> the aesthetics of boredom, what's a few more minutes? I'd argue 'Sleep' is
> a performance art piece based in creating a mind-fuck around 'what it means
> to watch a film', which becomes about what different people in the audience
> at any screening DO in response to the challenge of 'how am I supposed to
> engage this thing' when faced with a work for which no existing conventions
> seem to apply, and which offers no hints of what 'rules' viewers might
> apply to it.
>
> Which poses a question of 'extra-textuality' for exhibitors – as in
> announcing a screening and inviting an audience some set of expectations
> are set forth, if only by the larger context of how the screening space or
> organization is framed (we show avant garde films), or the most minimal of
> rubrics ("a film by Andy Warhol"). That context would change if the
> screening was framed as a Happening, and the audience had access beforehand
> to the idea I just presented (this is about what different viewers do with
> it...). E.g. it's one thing if viewers are cued to the idea that it might
> be more interesting to attend to what other people in the audience are
> doing than to attend to what is or isn't happening on screen, and another
> thing if they're left to discover that possibility for themselves. But like
> everything about 'Sleep' I don't think there's a 'right' answer.
>
> Related random Factory-al thought: How about a screening where two bowls
> of pills are placed on a table to one side of the screen, one containing
> Adderall tabs, the other Klonopin? Thus other audience members could see
> who goes for which pills and when...
>
> Related random post-Factory-al thought: How about getting a couple of
> analytic projectors and showing 'Sleep' as a Ken-Jacobs-Nervous-System
> thing that goes slowly back and forth through the footage at different
> speeds and lasts, say, a whole week 24/7??
>
> And who says four projectors would cut the TRT in half? Why not have four
> screens and just shuttle the reels from one to the next, still
> sequentially, Friar Jacques style?
>
> ...But if you set up something like that as one of those f***ing museum
> installation loops so it just went on and on forever without beginning or
> end and with people coming and going at random points whenever the hell
> they wanted to, THAT would heresy! HERESY, I say!... :-)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150807/95536b22/attachment.html>