From: Anna Biller (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jul 22 2010 - 19:44:03 PDT
By the way, I know I'm preaching to the choir here...
On Jul 22, 2010, at 7:39 PM, Anna Biller wrote:
>> On Jul 20, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> That's a funny thing to have to think about. It's as if you fell in
> love with someone and then someone asked you, "are you sure that
> person is really *that* special, when you haven't tried this other
> type of person? How do you know someone else isn't more lovable?" So
> of course it's a taste and a fetish. But why does it have to be *that*
> essential in order for people to still use it? Why do those who
> haven't switched over have to explain their reasons for not switching?
> Why force yourself to switch if you love something?
>
> I like your story a lot, by the way. But Brakhage's answer, "I would
> work with it," doesn't show love or eagerness, merely adaptability. I
> personally am guilty of "loving to physically handle film." Some
> people really do feel satisfied only when they are working with their
> hands. I understand that wonderful things can be and are created on
> digital video all the time, but film for me is the love object. I
> would, like Brakhage, adapt if I had to, but I'd rather not have to.
> I've been getting lectures for almost 20 years now about how film is
> dead and I have to switch to video.
>
>
> On Jul 20, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>> 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
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks