From: Michael Betancourt (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Jun 28 2006 - 14:00:54 PDT
I wasn't dismissing them, nor did I say that you wrote this:
On 6/28/06, Sam Wells <email suppressed> wrote:
> > So IF its made with film, then its good? Isn't that just formalism?
>
> I never wrote that.
I was just asking the question the reponse seemed to be begging for...
> > Nevermind that when the main concern is one of preservation, we're
> > not talking about a "live" art form, but something that is dead and
> > we're busy worrying about the formaldehyde smell...
>
> I'm kind of stunned by this statement....
>
> Are we wasting energy heating and air conditioning libraries ?
>
> Should artists and archives not bother with acid-free paper ?
Depends on the artist, I'd say.
But the issue of preservation isn't the same as the one of making art,
nor is it the same as what is "good". Much should be preserved that
isn't even art, and that gets no objecion from me.
> > Also, what is this "WHAT" you mention? and how does it make it
> > "good" ?
>
>
> I had written: "But if WHAT makes it good is what emerges from the
> _materials_ and how that happens then I think you can't dismiss these
> issues out of hand either."
>
> How does meaning in art arise from the materials ?
>
I don't think meaning arises from anything except people who make
interpretations. Which returns the question of what makes this "good"
you're talking about, or by implication, what makes a work "bad"?
This is much more interesting to ask than archivalists' questions
about which box to check on the library card. IMO.
Michael Betancourt
Des Moines, IA USA
www.michaelbetancourt.com
www.cinegraphic.net
the avant-garde film & video blog
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.