From: db (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Mar 04 2006 - 18:15:44 PST
If I believed what you say about John Q Public, Jarrod, I'd have
become the infantile, gullible, unthinking, uncritical, narrow
minded, "what's in it for me" consumer I see all around me when I
visit the local Mall. By breaking from that cycle I've discovered
depth, real joy, life-changing friendships, and things I could never
have imagined.
So, call me elitist for saying so, but I could give a fuck about what
JQP thinks. He's probably trying to figure out how to hook up with a
chick like Kevin Federline did. While sucking down cheetos and pepsi,
of course. BTW, my background might very well be as "white trash" as
KF's, something I am rather proud of when I do meet elitists (aka
"snobs). Which, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the subject of
this conversation, as much as you seem intent on reducing it to.
db
On Mar 3, 2006, at 2:33 PM, jarrod whaley. wrote:
> Isn't judgment, in one form or another, at the very heart of all
> critical thinking? Without judgment, aren't we no more than slavish
> parrots? If, as you say, "the artists/thinkers on the list are not
> about jon q public" then what are they about? Something better?
> What are they, Olympic Gods? If your concerns are not those of the
> public, and you truly live in an ivory tower where feces has no
> odor, then good for you. You can do whatever you want. I'm just
> telling you why I personally think avoiding video at all costs is
> not only a form of suicide, but also an incredibly elitist and
> futile gesture.
>
> Your final point strikes me as particularly inane, I have to say.
> There's no guarantee that a group of ten celluloid fetishists is
> going to "get" your work any more than a room full of "average
> joes." And if you show your work to thousands of people, you may be
> able to find 20 or 30 people who "get" your work instead of just
> the 10. Those extra 10 or 20 people you don't seem to care about
> might actually benefit from seeing your work. It seems it's only
> the "in-crowd" of fetishists that you care about.
>
> If your work is so limited in effect that it must be seen on film
> and no other medium in order to be "gotten," i.e. if it is so
> focused on the medium that no other qualities in it are worth
> exploring, then nothing I have to say applies to you anyway, so
> just ignore me. I'm talking about work that has meaning and
> importance beyond self-fetishization and masturbation.
>
> I haven't seen your work, of course, I'm just going by the way you
> present it here. I apologize if any of this sounds harsh, but I
> felt it was called for.
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.