From: Matt Helme (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jul 18 2010 - 21:03:37 PDT
Good point, Genre is little more than a marketing tool. On the other hand, when
people ask what you do, what do you tell them you make?
Matt
________________________________
From: Jennifer Saparzadeh <email suppressed>
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Sent: Sun, July 18, 2010 11:59:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Experimental Documentary
It seems to me that the names placed on things have very little to do with the
things themselves. I mean, whether you call something a document, a
documentary, a fiction, a piece of art, or a experimental is kind of
insignificant; I think it's the reaction you have from watching it that defines
it.. and that is nameless. oh gee, that kind of sounds like a Honda commercial
too! Well see that's just it. There is no good in letting advertising's
exploitation of earnest and genuine sentiments ruin the perception we have of
them.
I realize that a ton of other things come into play and I hear my own devil's
advocate.. I don't know. I guess it's just seems kind of silly to get so caught
up in names. I mean whether Stan Brakhage made pieces of art or experimental
films means so little. I would never have thought to call what I make
experimental but if that's what others call it it's still the same film.
Quoting marilyn brakhage <email suppressed>:
> The problem with using the example of Brakhage for this argument is
> that he never considered his work "experimental" in the first place.
> (There's an interview segment included on the new Brakhage DVD set in
> which he discusses the problems with this terminology.) He believed
> he was making "art," but that to be considered art by his definition
> (and by that of many others) it would ultimately have to pass "the
> test of time." It would not become an outdated "experiment," thus.
>
> Marilyn Brakhage
>
>
>
> On 18-Jul-10, at 5:24 PM, Jeff Kreines wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Alex McCarron
> > So the conventions of experimental film never become conventional?
> >
> > Exactly what I was trying to say.
> >
> > I guess the question becomes, for some, when in history does
> > something swing from experimental to merely outre to conventional to
> > cliche to Honda commercial?
> >
> > How does that apply to an artist's ouvre over time? If their works
> > don't radically change, are they suddenly relegated to the category
> > of cliche-makers just because time has blunted the boldness of their
> > pioneering works? Or are they grandfathered/grandmothered --
> > granted permanent outsider status?
> >
> > Obviously one size does not fit all.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Alex McCarron
> > So the conventions of experimental film never become conventional?
> >
> > I love Jonas Mekas but if you tried to do what he did today it
> > wouldn't be called experimental film, it'd be called a Honda
> > commercial.
> >
> > Alex
> >
> > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Matt Helme <email suppressed>
> > wrote:
> > How many film's did Brakhage make? Was he considered conventional in
> > 2000?
> > Matt
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FrameWorks mailing list
> > email suppressed
> > http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FrameWorks mailing list
> > email suppressed
> > http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> > _______________________________________________
> > FrameWorks mailing list
> > email suppressed
> > http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks