From: Jonathan Walley (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Mar 07 2009 - 09:50:11 PST
First of all, the main concern of my reply to Tony's original post was
to speculate on whether or not (per Tony's reference) work like that
Anders proposed should be called "paracinema:" what kind of
affinities, if any, it had with that type of work (at least as I have
tried to define it when I have written about it). Hence, my use of
terms like "distribution," in reference to the internet, was fairly
general - not necessarily meant to imply all these characteristics:
that the work "travels" from "point A to point B," that there is a
"message," and that something is "delivered." But surely something
circulates through a network, and at the very least a broad analogy
can be drawn between Anders circulating his films (he does identify
them as such, which suggests to me that they are "constructively
conceived of in the context of moving images") via the web and a
filmmaker releasing his/her films "out into the world" via a more
traditional distribution network comprised of coops, renting
institutions, libraries, renters, private print owners, etc.
In other words, I suppose I was using the term "distribution" in
reference to what Anders was doing with the net heuristically, and
simply meant to point out that his project suggested - and even
created - complications to a contemporary method of film/video
circulation in a way similar to an earlier generation of so-called
"expanded cinema" works, which could not be circulated, or
distributed, via the conventional means. In short, I was more
interested in talking about paracinema than about the internet.
Still, as the above should indicate, I wouldn't say that delivery, for
net art or anything else, is a "metaphor." Something is delivered, and
even if it is ephemeral - in the sense that it is not an easily
definable, tactile object (i.e. it is made up of so and so many bits
of invisible, streaming electronic information stored nowhere), it is
still a work that moves from one place to the other via, in this case,
the internet. So yes, something does travel, though I wouldn't say
that makes it a "message," necessarily. And as for the parameters of
the work and the effects of ephemerality on our ability to perceive
these parameters, works were ephemeral long before they were
electronic, and the idea of multiple-locations of input and reception
was not born with the internet. We can accept conceptual art pieces
like releasing two cubic feet of helium into the Mojave Desert (Robert
Barry), or private performances, as "works," in spite of their
ephemerality.
And there may be more than one point A and point B, but these points
still exist, and of course there is an original point A - the artist
who inputs the work into the system.
As for the other questions you ask, they slide from ontological
questions (i.e., what is the nature of the internet and is it really
so different as a medium and/or distribution mechanism from previous
media and mechanisms?) to questions of value - the significance of
this kind of work for a politics of media, and understanding of social
control, etc. Other people here had weighed in, often with much
skepticism, on the political potential of the web and net art. I would
simply add that what I find interesting about Anders's project
specifically is that his action of removing the original work is at
least as important - if not more - as the choice to distribute (or
whatever word you like) the work on the web. That is, his action - his
choice to complicate an existing means of art exchange, which strikes
me as not so different as those of a pre-internet generation artists
engaged in conceptual and paracinematic work, is what makes this
project potentially interesting. Keep in mind that he could just as
easily use the web in a more straightforward manner, as a more
traditionally means of moving image distribution, keeping control of
the original work and simply replacing distribution coops (or
galleries) and mail with electronic circulation.
This is why I made the analogy between his work and Tony's paracinema
in the first place. Tony's Yellow Movies, projection performances, and
cooked films not only raised questions about frame rate or projection,
or for that matter the efficacy of formalist film and art criticism,
but threw a monkey wrench into the whole system of distribution and
exhibition that were part of how experimental cinema was/is defined.
But now we're back to paracinema...
Best,
Jonathan
Jonathan Walley
Assistant Professor
Department of Cinema
Denison University
Granville, Ohio
email suppressed
On Mar 4, 2009, at 10:06 AM, Roddy, Bernard P. wrote:
> If Tony's work has raised questions about the significance of frame
> rate or projection for film, I am asking about the value of the
> delivery metaphor for net art. Is there a point A or B? Is there a
> message, does something travel? What are the parameters of the
> work? What is the "it" of this work, a video? What is its
> significance? Is it most constructively conceived of in the context
> of moving images? What makes it interesting? The use of ephemeral
> suggests material decay, but suppose we use the biological metaphor
> of a virus. What is the significance of imagery? Is there a
> location of reception? What significance does the work present for
> a politics of media? Is it important in understanding social
> control? Is it liberating, radical . . ?
>
> Bernie
> ________________________________________
> From: Experimental Film Discussion List
> [email suppressed
> ]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 7:26 PM
> To: email suppressed
> Subject: Re: Ephermal filmworks? History?
>
> On Mar 3, 2009, at 7:01 PM, Roddy, Bernard P. wrote:
>
>> Terranova's book Network Culture undertakes to replace the discourse
>> of representation with that of information (I approximate), and to
>> get beyond the terms of cultural criticism (traced from Marx through
>> the Frankfurt School to British emphasis on identity). Walley's
>> reliance on the language of distribution ("from point A to point B,"
>> "institutions through which these things are brought to us") seems
>> ill-suited for examining the nature of the practice Anders has
>> going, particularly given that we can constructively examine the
>> project without seeing the work (right?).
>
> But the work still has to travel, and it must do so through some
> means. A network is precisely such a means, and that's all it is,
> whether it is an "old-fashioned" distribution network of film/video
> coop's sending prints through the mail to people who want to screen
> them or "new-fashioned" electronic networks that allow us to transmit
> and see works via the internet. It seems to me that Anders's project
> is, in part, about the nature of this latter "network," about
> something that makes it distinct from other modes of distribution (and
> the potential consequences of these). This is all I mean by
> "distribution."
>
> I'm not sure why the language of distribution is less relevant to this
> project on the grounds that "we can constructively examine the project
> without seeing the work." Indeed, this seems to make the nature of its
> distribution all the more relevant. In this case, the nature of the
> "distribution" format Anders has chosen for his work may NOT bring the
> work to a viewer - it may FAIL. But this doesn't make it NOT a form of
> distribution, does it?
>
> Again, I suppose it comes down to how one defines "distribution." I'm
> not sure I'm really relying on a "language of distribution." That
> sounds pretty systematic. Simply pointing out that works of art, under
> most circumstances, travel from their maker to a viewer (or group of
> viewers), often through some more or less formalized system, and that
> this has consequences for who sees the work (and how, and when, and
> if) isn't the same as invoking a systematized discourse, which is what
> I take the first sentence of your post to be suggesting.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.