From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Oct 02 2006 - 13:48:09 PDT
On 10/2/06, Randolph Jordan <email suppressed> wrote:
>
> Cari said:
>
> "i for one think it is much more damaging the activity of universities in
> our
> culture - than that of hollowood the lie that education is actually
> occurring -
> let alone fully(talk about commodity production). this is profoundly more
> unethical and not dissimular to the lie of the evening news"
>
> You make an interesting point about the idea of "ownership" being shared
> by both
> Hollywood and the more independently minded. But I think the issue here
> is not
> the concept of "ownership" in general, but rather the question of
> intellectual
> property rights as it relates to Hollywood's appropriation of material
> produced
> outside the system.
well how does intellectual 'property' have nothing to do w/ ownership?
[ur conversing w/ a native american so...
if u know anything of that history...]
the impact of the 100th monkey principle
is that ideas are in the air
any writer knows this maybe more than artists/filmmakers -
But I'm unclear about how your generalizing claim that universities are
> damaging
> our culture relates to these issues. What is your particular problem with
> the
> university system? And how does this relate to intellectual property
> rights
> regarding the work of experiemental filmmakers?
good question
- roughly i will try to answer -
the 'product' of the university is a commodity driven entity
the 'job' of our present university system is not set up to actually educate
in any real sense (particularly in a socrateal sense)
the individual is not engaged - if so (more) descent would occur -
our universities engage in a very real political stance
that of a capitalist
further the hierarchical system is to me a large joke
just because someone is older than me they 'know more'
and can judge my work 'better' than me?
whereby it is really more of an interchange
and then only if the 'teacher' loosens the death grip of their ego
also i just don't think that professors generally
keep themselves on the threshold of knowledge
- and often fight against the reality of what is futuresque -
my connection herein was that many many
experimental filmmakers make their money through this system
(someone that posted in complaint posted w/ an .edu)
have gotten educations in this system
haven't changed this system
worked within this system
yet rail against the lesser of two evils in regard to knowledge advancement
(and don't rail against the edu system)
ie hollowood probably (humanly) gives us more knowledge
(with all it's flaws and disgustingnesses)
more real knowledge than the university system
(especially if u consider the amount of money comparatively spent in both
sectors
i would say hollowood gives us more bang for our buck)
also
art as commodity degrades art
lessons the knowledge we get to gain fr: it
lessons our connection
value is not limited to the monetary
c
Randolph.
>
> On Mon Oct 2 10:31 , Cari Machet <email suppressed> sent:
>
>
> >i for one think it is much more damaging
> >the activity of universities in our culture - than that of hollowood
> >the lie that education is actually occurring - let alone fully
> >(talk about commodity production)
> >
> >this is profoundly more unethical
> >and not dissimular to the lie of the evening news
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.