From: Michael Betancourt (email suppressed)
Date: Wed Jun 28 2006 - 15:53:29 PDT
no.
On 6/28/06, Sam Wells <email suppressed> wrote:
>
> >
> > But the issue of preservation isn't the same as the one of making art,
>
> Well I think it can be and usually is. Even, say Andy Goldsworthy
> whose work is I would say pointedly non-preservable. I mean the point
> is argued around his work...
>
>
> >>
> >> How does meaning in art arise from the materials ?
> >>
> > I don't think meaning arises from anything except people who make
> > interpretations.
>
> No ideas but in things sez Doc Williams
>
>
>
> > Which returns the question of what makes this "good"
> > you're talking about, or by implication, what makes a work "bad"?
>
> It's my arbitrary bourgeois white male imperialist value judgement ;-)
>
> That's the bad news, the good news is I'm always right.
>
> JEEZ really,
>
> I was speaking not of good work / bad work but of -- what of value
> (HOPE that word isn't too loaded) - or let's say "of value" (beyond
> what they'd gain by skipping the screening and staring at the wall in
> Starbucks instead fr'insance) your "interpretation makers" would get
> from it, derive from it, be engaged from it..
>
> Now if they're reading Susan Sontag in Starbucks I'm not so sure, but
> after a few macchiato lattes they're gonna have to get up sometime.
> y'know what I mean ?
>
> I mean form & materials give the interpretive field a geology, no ?
>
> -Sam
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
-- 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>.