From: john porter (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jun 29 2006 - 15:04:28 PDT
What do Mitsu's common sense and Michael's productive
mentality say is the commonly-used word referring
exclusively to that medium which is always viewed by
passing light through a strip of clear acetate (not
celluloid)?
If we don't have such a word, that will help to kill
that medium. Sounds like a lot of people want that.
They're vultures and I'm a zombie. Grrrrrrr.
John.
--- Michael Betancourt <email suppressed>
wrote:
> I agree with all of this:
>
> On 6/29/06, Mitsu Hadeishi <email suppressed>
> wrote:
> >
> > Obviously there are people who are wedded to film
> as a medium, and no
> > amount
> > of discussion will change that. However, the
> world moves on. The fact
> > is,
> > the word "film" is used all the time to refer to
> HD productions; my friend
> > Miranda July for example released her film to
> theaters, but in some venues
> > it
> > was projected digitally (including at IFC and at
> Sundance), and just
> > because
> > in those cases it was produced and projected
> digitally, it would have
> > sounded
> > ridiculous to call it a "video".
> >
> > Human beings decide what words mean through usage,
> and the general public
> > and
> > common sense usage seem to agree that the word
> "film" can be used for
> > all-digital productions that are projected
> digitally as long as it is
> > reasonably high resolution and decent contrast,
> etc. It's just the way
> > the
> > word is already being used, whether we like it or
> not.
> >
> > I don't think there's going to be much confusion
> --- context will
> > generally
> > make it clear whether you're using the word "film"
> to mean specifically
> > the
> > celluloid medium, or whether you're using it more
> generically. The fact
> > is,
> > after most production goes digital people will
> still be calling it "the
> > film
> > industry" and the things that are being produced
> "films". That's the way
> > language works, the original inspiration for the
> word can become obsolete
> > but
> > the word lives on in a new context.
> >
> > And I think there's nothing whatever wrong with
> that.
>
>
>
> Languages evolve and meanings change.
> Wanting to tie the language down and stop it
> changing is really only good
> for archivists, and my feeling is that this
> mentality is counter-productive
> for us as a community. Either "experimental (fill-in
> your favorite term)
> film" constitutes a tradition that exceeds the
> materials of its
> production/presentation, or it dies and "video art"
> and that tradition (in
> some ways similar, in others not) replaces it.
>
> We've talked about this before, which is why I asked
> the "values" question.
>
>
> 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>.
>
>
John Porter, Toronto, Canada
http://www.super8porter.ca/
email suppressed
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.