From: Michael Betancourt (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Jul 03 2006 - 19:24:14 PDT
Personally, I can understand why the specific medium of production might
have impact on some interpretations--but not all of them.
Consider this debate this way: try taking this argument and replacing the
"film" vs "DV/HDV/etc" arguments with say, "oil paint" vs "watercolor" and
it will just start seeming silly--while they are also different materials
with some different potentials, the kind of argument we're having isn't
something of great significance in the larger realm of visual art (or even
painting itself).
Mediumistic arguments of the type happening right now seem to happen only at
two times--when a new technology appears and needs to claim itself a space
as "art" (as with early video manifestations of the 1970s for example) or
when an older established medium seeks to maintain its position in relation
to a new, disruptive medium that seems to be "stealing" its position as DV
is doing to film. This second type of argument is, fundamentally, motivated
by the same fight against disruptive technology that leads entrenched
organizations and companies to try ans squelch threats to their business
model (think Napster/RIAA or bittorrent/MPAA).
So.... To be in a parallel position to the RIAA doesn't sound "experimental"
or "avant-garde" imho.
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>.