From: jeanne LIOTTA (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jul 22 2010 - 21:29:42 PDT
wait--is that the red kryptonite or the gold kryptonite?
Jeanne 'rewatching all of Buffy this summer' Liotta
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Anna Biller <email suppressed>wrote:
> 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
>
-- www.jeanneliotta.net
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks