From: Paul Krimmer (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 20 2010 - 18:10:10 PDT
You know everybody´s talking about technic-stuff so much, because its a
language - film - is coded per letter to tell the story and we all stare
at the differences in the look and how we look at things to express our
own version of reality to a way where the filmmaker is able to construct
a whole idea-building, where people get influenced and guided in their
own mind inside out the mass-isolation of cinema. But what in this
discurse we forget to mention the emotion to express. Film is spiritual
heritage, and the moment HOW a film is shoot changes the way the story
is told, or even people look. its a spectacle - always keep in mind.
e.g. im riding an old ancient austrian motorcycle from the fifties where
i get in connection with the strangest kind of people getting in contact
with me - but thats only a part of the whole idea - its a story - so im
going to put on it a magic arm to film right in the situation to catch
it, right away like a music. so think about it, every object has its
machine-language, even video, too - for me it only half fun, its
anonymous, because you always film with video before and after the
action, then in post, you have to search for the moment - remember what
peter kubelka said: film exists between the frames!
and even the time you spend in cutting, in viewing, in thinking, its all
this, its changing you´re relationship with every moment you decide, it
gets emotionally expensive, so be rich, show it!!!!
if you´re in doubt go for the doubt!
Fred Camper schrieb:
> This is a bit personal and self-promoting, perhaps, but what the hell.
>
> As a kid, before the age of ten, I had a 35mm still camera, a cheap
> enlarger, and darkroom trays, and could take and process and enlarge
> black and white photos. The process fascinated me. Discovering cinema
> at 15, I started shooting, first 8mm, then 16mm, then later super-8,
> completing a number of films. I loved the particular light of cinema,
> and the uniqueness of various emulsions. In 16mm there was Kodachrome
> and ECO and the old Ektachrome ER and later EF. There were also those
> weird Ansco stocks, like D100 and D200. In 1970s in super-8 Kodak had
> a great selection: Kodachrome, Ektachrome 160, Ektachrome G, EF, and
> SM. Each had a different look. The filmmaker Warren Sonbert talked
> about the different looks of the various 16mm emulsions, which he
> intercut.
>
> When films started to come out in VHS (mis) translations, I objected,
> and still do: http://www.fredcamper.com/Film/Video.html Admittedly
> Blu-Ray is much better, but still, not the same, if a film was made to
> be shown on film.
>
> In 2002 I got my first digital still camera. Two years later I began
> making art works based on the photos I was taking. This has become my
> main "project." The photos themselves don't have the same kind of
> depth as an excellent 35mm or medium format negative might, but I've
> found other virtues in them. Additionally, I can take as many as I
> like without spending any extra money, unlike with actual film. I
> don't think I ever would have started if I were paying per roll. Now
> I'm doing this work full time, and it has changed a lot in recent
> years, and I'm now exploring things unique to digital imaging.
> (http://www.fredcamper.com , but this work loses more than you would
> think in the Web versions )
>
> Back to celluloid. Some filmmakers have made works that depend on the
> particular qualities of film projection, the particular kind of
> flicker, and other unique things. I hope they can keep going. Others,
> such as Bruce McClure and Louis Recoder, make excellent
> film-projection performance works that obviously don't translate at
> all to video. But when some others who are attached to film say, "I
> love the look of film," without having tried high-def video and
> experimented with various kinds of video display (such as high quality
> projection), I find myself wondering: is this merely a taste, or even
> a fetish, or is celluloid really *that* essential to their art? When a
> filmmaker talks about loving to physically handle film, I wonder even
> more. Digital video, both high quality and the various "low
> qualities," has its own possibilities too, possibilities different
> from celluloid, and the only way to discover them is by working with it.
>
> In still photography, artists still use various 19th century
> processes, such as platinum printing, so there's certainly hope for
> celluloid as an artisanal medium, along the lines that have already
> been mentioned in posts here. But the glorious weirdness of Ektachrome
> Type G, or the absolute Kodachrome clarity of ECO printed on 7387, are
> unlikely to return. Some of us will always be mourning these losses,
> but time spent in such mourning is also time wasted. Work with what
> you have!
>
> Stan Brakhage used to say that if film died, he make scratchings on
> flat stones on the beach and line them up like dominoes to make a
> primitive flip book. He also made various statements against video as
> well, statements I mostly don't agree with. But also, late in his
> life, I asked him: "If someone offered you for free the best possible
> digital video setup, with a technician to help..." and before I could
> finish the question, he surprised me by answering, "I would work with
> it."
>
> Fred Camper
> Chicago
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks