From: DOMINIC ANGERAME (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jun 15 2008 - 09:22:41 PDT
I have been following the ubu thread as much as
possible and as both a filmmaker and the Director of
Canyon Cinmea I have mixed opinions about statements
said, etc.
I know first hand that the activities of Ubu, Youtube,
etc....all hurts the film distribution activities of
the 5-10 remaining experimental filmmaking
distribution organizations still remaining active
today. Places like Canyon Cinema, the Filmmakers'
Coop, Light Cone, Lux, Six Pack and others are places
that attempt to protect the filmmakers from being
ripped off when their work is being shown publicly
either in a theatre, museum, installation or being
shown to the world thru the internet.....
It is not just a matter of payment of money for such
exhibitions, it also has to do with how the image is
presented. Low res visuals and 5 minute clips are not
a fair representation of most filmmaker's work. This
is fine for previewing, however, not for exhibition or
classroom study.
Many pieces placed on youtube are not even the correct
versions of the films since they have been posted by
other people and not the filmmakers themselves. Many
times I have had to write them letters asking to
remove work that was not authorized. Quite frankly I
cannot spend the rest of my like going thru these
sites and policing them....
Bruce Conner has withdrawn his work for now and it is
undergoing major restoration....they may be available
in the near future, however, for now I cannot say.
In today's world there must be a solution for the
situation we find ourselves in as filmmakers, viewers,
curators, teachers, researchers, etc. A way to have hi
res copies (or clips) of the avant garde cinema be
presented on line without ripping off the artist and
doing a major disservice to the community by
exhibiting unauthorized or unapproved material.....and
at the same time respecting those artists that do not
want their work publicly presented in any digital
format.....
Thanks
Dominic Angerame
Filmmaker, Director, Canyon Cinema
--- Steve Polta <email suppressed> wrote:
> Yes. This is all very interesting.
>
> It may be worth mentioning at this point in the
> discussion that Bruce Conner has recently withdrawn
> his famous and influential films from distribution.
> No more rentals from Canyon of A MOVIE, MONGOLOID,
> etc. to schools, museums, microcinemas or ad
> agencies. I don't know his reasons but there you go.
> Indeed, the free-wheeling Bruce Conner has always
> (or at least for a long time) been perhaps more
> controlling of the contexts in which his work is
> displayed than any artist I know of (other than
> those who have withdrawn completely).
>
> Steve Polta
>
>
> --- On Wed, 6/11/08, Beverly O'Neill
> <email suppressed> wrote:
>
> > From: Beverly O'Neill <email suppressed>
> > Subject: Re: The Politics of the Bootleg
> > To: email suppressed
> > Date: Wednesday, June 11, 2008, 1:50 PM
> > Dear James, Your post cuts to the chase. How
> much traffic
> > and
> > income does UBU steer toward the artists it
> streams. Ubu
> > has built a
> > major reputation through link citations and search
> traffic
> > that it is
> > the first listing on Goggle for artists like
> Hollis
> > Frampton, Ken
> > Jacobs, Yvonne Rainer, George Kuchar, James
> Broughton,
> > Ernie Gehr, et
> > al. When opening UBU one is offered an immediate
> full
> > viewing of
> > their most well known works. Does that boost
> media artists
> > rentals
> > through co-op rentals, or DVD purchases? Canyon
> Cinema
> > thinks the
> > matter is worth exploring.
> >
> > Conner's use of found footage and UBU's
> > appropriation of an artist's
> > complete output cannot be confused. Conner has
> operated
> > for years in
> > the sphere of public domain. One could argue he
> made the
> > first, most
> > important contribution to film history with "A
> > Movie". That 50 year
> > old piece has generated more spin-offs, one of the
> latest
> > being Bill
> > Maher's opening titles on his HBO show. We should
> > celebrate "A
> > Movie"s golden anniversary.
> >
> > Really loved your insights.
> > Beverly O'Neill
> > On Jun 11, 2008, at 8:12 AM, James Cole wrote:
> >
> > > The difference between found footage and what
> ubu is
> > doing is pretty
> > > clear, I think. One is recontextualizing work
> and
> > re-presenting it in
> > > creative ways. Ubu, on the other hand, shows
> the work
> > in degraded
> > > form without any regard for the maker. They're
> > not trying to create
> > > art (which is something that can, I think, fall
> under
> > the umbrella of
> > > fair use). They're just showing other
> > people's art, with total
> > > disregard for the people who made it and with
> how they
> > present it. It
> > > seems to me that there is a pretty clear divide
> from
> > found footage and
> > > what ubu does. I'm not sure what I can say,
> > really, if we can't
> > > distinguish between what Bruce Conner, Ken
> Jacobs,
> > etc., etc. do, and
> > > what Ubu is doing (with its self righteous hall
> of
> > shame), then I
> > > don't really know what to say. But, to me, it
> > doesn't seem especially
> > > tricky to distinguish between Bruce Conner and
> Ubu, or
> > between
> > > Negativeland and The Pirate Bay. If you use a
> > little bit of common
> > > sense, you should be able to establish what is
> fair
> > use.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, this idea that "what matters is
> that
> > people see the
> > > work," thats very nice, FOR YOU. But if Ken
> > Jacobs and Robert Beavers
> > > and Nathanial Dorsky want their films to be seen
> in
> > certain controlled
> > > enviornments, then that is THIER right. If they
> did
> > want to lock it
> > > in a drawer, that would be their right, as well.
> I
> > get the feeling
> > > that some people would much rather their work
> never be
> > seen than it be
> > > seen in poor light.
> > >
> > > Also, is it really so wrong for people to want
> to get
> > paid for their
> > > work? People throw so much money into making
> this
> > stuff, and we don't
> > > think they should be able to negotiate the terms
> for
> > the showing of
> > > their work? They should spend all of their
> money to
> > make a film and
> > > then get a job delivering pizzas to pay for it?
> > There's a letter out
> > > there somewhere from Frampton to the Moma
> regarding
> > some of these
> > > issues. There is an idea that artists should be
> > greatful that anyone
> > > wants to see their work, but to me that should
> be up
> > to the artist.
> > >
> > > -James
> > >
> > >
> > > On 6/11/08, Jorge Amaro <email suppressed>
> > wrote:
> > >> Could Bruce Conner made A Movie having that in
> > mind? Could dozens of
> > >> found footage film makers have done anything
> at
> > all? The concept of
> > >> property is somehow confusing for me. The idea
> of
> > nullify the found
> > >> footage films I love so much over a concept of
> > property is weird.
> > >> And
> > >> no one will think that a videotaped event from
> > some museum or
> > >> screening will substitute the film, and i
> think
> > what matters is that
> > >> people see the work, isnt it for that reason
> > people make them in the
> > >> first place? If they made it over an idea of
> > property they could
> > >> close
> > >> it in drawer and throw away key, that alone is
> > the only option if
> > >> you
> > >> dont want to see copies of your work.
> > >>
> > >> j.
> > >>
> > >> 2008/6/11 James Cole
> > <email suppressed>:
> > >>
> > >>>> That's like saying a
> > >>>> postcard of the Mona Lisa is the
> > intellectual property of Leonardo.
> > >>>
> > >>> Is that really such an absurd idea? I mean,
> > it seems pretty clear
> > >>> that, were Leonardo alive, it would be his
> > property. Certainly you
> > >>> can't be in favor of the postcard
> > manufacturer being able to make
> > >>> profits off of the Mona Lisa while Da Vinci
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.