[Frameworks] Celluloid Now Call for Entries

[Luke Aspell]

"Photochemical film" and filmmaking seems to be the most precise way of
saying what's meant here.

On Sat, Jun 11, 2022 at 6:07 PM Fred Camper <f at fredcamper.com> wrote:

> Mark, and CFS, are right about something here. "Analog film" may be
> redundant, but it may also be the best solution to a problem, and as it
> becomes used more often it becomes, linguistically speaking, correct.
>
> Years ago, as "disrespected" began to be used commonly as a verb, it was
> objected that it was not a word. But it turns out to have been the best
> way of saying something, so now it is a word. If "analog film" is the
> best solution, fine, let's all use it. I don't have a strong opinion on
> how to solve this.
>
> Fred Camper
> Chicago
>
> On 6/11/2022 12:49 PM, mrktosc wrote:
> > Yeah, Pip I think you’re definitely taking this too literally,
> particularly for an event which is clearly meant to positively celebrate
> the love for a medium (and congrats CFS for the effort!).
> >
> > And if we want to be strict, “celluloid” is also not accurate, and
> pertains only to the nitrate era - but we still use it casually and gladly
> in referring to film.  So, like “celluloid”, the word “film” has for a
> while now come to be fairly medium-agnostic, and it has made sense in
> recent years to add the adjective “analog” to clarify, especially for
> younger enthusiasts for whom the material was never an everyday presence.
> In their contemporary usage in this kind of context, at least in my view,
> both “analog” and “film” have implications that extend quite a bit beyond
> their historical and now more conservative uses.
> >
> > And film as a process is analog - film hasn’t just rigidly meant the
> physical material in like 100 years… As a term it means much more than the
> flexible plastic material called film, and it’s this inclusive and complex
> sense of culture/medium/engagement that this festival is clearly meant to
> highlight.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> >
> >> On Jun 11, 2022, at 6:25 PM, Fred Camper <f at fredcamper.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree that "analog" is redundant, and that electronically recorded
> video can be analog, but unfortunately just using "film" is now
> problematic, since an overwhelming shift in usage has it applying to
> digital video. Shooting digital video is now called "filming," and a video
> can be called a "film" We may not like this, but usage has made it correct.
> >>
> >> My solution is to write "celluloid." One might write, "films printed on
> celluoloid," or, to be more restrictive, "films shot and printed on
> celluloid." It would be interesting to know if the festival will accept
> works shot on video but printed on celluloid, and designed that way, for
> the look of, for example, Pixelvision on celluloid. Such things exist.
> >>
> >> I am all ears as to a better terminology solution.
> >>
> >> Fred Camper
> >> Chicago
> >>
> >>> On 6/11/2022 12:01 PM, FrameWorks Admin wrote:
> >>> Just a comment here: film is not analog. Film is a material. Whereas
> an audio or a video signal can be either analog or digital, it is a
> misnomer to say “analog film” or “digital film” - please just say film.
> >>> - Pip Chodorov
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> On Jun 11, 2022, at 1:33 PM, Julian Antos <
> julian at chicagofilmsociety.org> wrote:
> >>>> We're very pleased to announce our call for entries for CELLULOID
> NOW, a four day showcase of recent work and archival rediscoveries
> presented on analog film. More info below!
> >> --
> >> Frameworks mailing list
> >> Frameworks at film-gallery.org
> >>
> https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org
>
> --
> Frameworks mailing list
> Frameworks at film-gallery.org
> https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://film-gallery.org/pipermail/frameworks_film-gallery.org/attachments/20220611/ee195efa/attachment.html>