From: Lawrence Daressa (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Oct 15 2010 - 15:09:04 PDT
I'd like to add the perspective of a non-profit film distributor for the
last 42 years (admittedly not of experimental work) in the hope it may
have some relevance to the thread over Ubu. I warn readers in advance
that this will be dry, technical and decidedly mundane. .
I do not share David Tetzlaff's enthusiasm for the "Free!" market
economics propounded by Wired Magazine entrepreneur and internet guru,
Chris Anderson. There is, in reality, no consensus that making films
available for free increases or decreases net sales or revenues, only
inconclusive anecdotal reports indicative of both. Almost all
generalizations about the internet, including Anderson's, are false
because there is no one internet, but many "internets." Experimental
filmmakers need to ask some questions about their internet before they
take the leap into "free" distribution; their answers will necessarily
not be the same.
1. First, how important is it for me to be paid for my work? Am I
looking for income, exposure or both?
2. How will people learn about my film? There's no point posting a film
on the web if nobody knows it's there. One of the most common but
baseless assumptions about the web is that there is a significant
correlation between accessibility and viewership.
3. Following from that, how many viewers will Ubu attract to my film
which I wouldn't reach through other avenues? This doesn't need
guesswork. What are the metrics (visitors, bounces, viewing time, etc)
for Ubu titles like your own?
4. How likely is it that these viewers will want to pay $24.95 to own a
DVD of my film? How many simply want to screen it one (or more) times or
pirate it from Ubu? Here a degree of humility is called for. .
4. An interesting option: would they pay $2.99 to rent it from an
internet content aggregator (eg i-Tunes or Amazon)?
5. How many schools and museums would purchase a DVD and/or streaming
license for my film(s)? How much would they pay (up to $500.)?
6. How likely are they simply to embed a link to Ubu in students'
on-line syllabi or buy a home video DVD for $24.95?
Most films, experimental or otherwise, have no opportunity to develop
visibility in the present content clutter of cyberspace and, as a
consequence, no chance to generate significant income. In these cases,
the choice is clear because there are no alternatives: put your work
everywhere you can and give it away for free in the hope that someone
will stumble across it (the fancy name for this is hyper-syndication.)
For the small number of experimental makers who do have "name
recognition" and generate significant income from screenings at
colleges (live or classroom) and museums the picture is more murky..
There is no question that free distribution results in significant
seepage into and dilution of consumer and institutional markets. - more
than a 50% loss. And it's perfectly legal. So, a filmmaker has to ask:
am I willing to risk that the sales I may gain by free delivery will
exceed the ones I definitely will lose as a result of it?
There have, of course, always been viable alternatives to Ubu for
promoting experimental film to its core constituency. Distributors,
festivals, exhibition programs, journals on and offline have been around
for years, though they are not available to most filmmakers again
because of content glut. These organs are perfectly adequate for
reaching the institutional market because, to a large extent, they
determine that market.
Many filmmakers use free sites as a deliberate part of an internet
marketing strategy, essentially as "bait" to lure (or if you prefer
attract or introduce) viewers to other paid (monetized) works. This can
simply means posting one short title on You Tube in the hope that
viewers will want to see more of your oeuvre. Another use of free
content is for "preview" streaming during a limited window, for example,
around high-visibility events like a festival or, now, embedded in an
online journal reviews. 30 days is usually a long enough window. Again,
the effect on sales pro and con is unclear.
Ubu could actually play a constructive role in this regard, though the
creator of its eponym would roll over in his pataphysical grave. Ubu
could offer both free and monetized content (or links to it) from the
same site, using open source, e-commerce functionality. Filmmakers could
then decide for themselves if and when they wanted their work to be
freely available.
Now for the really boring part: a final comment on the much-vexed
"intellectual property" debate. Copyright is enshrined in common law and
the US Constitution as a way for intellectual workers to earn a living
from their labor and hence continue to produce it. (In 1789, artists
and authors weren't tenured professors - as most still aren't.)
Copyright gives authors the right to determine who may make copies of
their work and to receive a royalty from those sales. There is an
exemption, the Fair Use Doctrine, which permits use of "limited
portions" of a work to "comment on" or "quote" but not "copy," that is
act as a substitute for that work. Fair Use allows for inclusion of
copyrighted content only if that use is "transformative," that is could
not be used to substitute for the original work.
Certain Fair Use internet fundamentalists have tried to broaden this
exemption to cover any screening, in whole or in part, of a copyrighted
work in a non-commercial venue, eg. a classroom, an online course, a
museum or Ubuweb, I suppose. They claim this would constitute a
transformative use even if the film were made explicitly for educational
or artistic viewing. I suspect this betrays a recrudescent "printist"
bias which associates the moving image with crass commercial
entertainment. One can hardly imagine an academic incorporating an
entire novel in a critical study of that novel as a "fair use." In any
case, this argument is widely considered to have little legal merit; it
is being advanced simply as a budget-cutting expedient to make artists
rather than students, faculty or taxpayers pay for educational
materials. The assumption is filmmakers are so disorganized they won't
be able to do anything about it; in this regard, as in so many others,
they are mistaken.
Larry Daressa
California Newsreel.
Lawrence Daressa
California Newsreel
500 Third Street, #505
San Francisco, CA 94107
phone: 415.284.7800 x302
fax: 415.284.7801
email suppressed
www.newsreel.org
-----Original Message-----
From: email suppressed
[mailto:email suppressed] On Behalf Of
email suppressed
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 10:01 AM
To: email suppressed
Subject: FrameWorks Digest, Vol 5, Issue 29
Send FrameWorks mailing list submissions to
email suppressed
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
email suppressed
You can reach the person managing the list at
email suppressed
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of FrameWorks digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: UbuWeb...HACKED! (David Tetzlaff)
2. Re: UbuWeb...HACKED! (David Tetzlaff)
3. Re: UbuWeb...HACKED! (Shelly Silver)
4. Re: UbuWeb...HACKED! (Mark Toscano)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:09:10 +0000
From: David Tetzlaff <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Message-ID: <email suppressed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
I usually find Anna Biller's posts to list to be thoughtful and sharp
whether I agree with them or not. But the msg. below makes me wonder
if Matt Helme is spoofing Ms. Biller's email address:
> If they really cared and
> wanted to support experimental film they could buy an inexpensive
> Brakhage DVD on Amazon and have it shipped to them internationally,
> and then Marilyn Brakhage could make a dollar or two or fifty cents
> which would be nice.
Of course, 'they' do buy the DVDs. What is missing from the discussion
of film-art-economics an analysis of how audiences for experimental
work come to exist -- what has to occur in the life of an individual
to make them want to see experimental films, rent experimental prints,
buy experimental DVDs. How is an appreciation for this out-of-the-
mainstream work acquired, and how does it grow and expand? Very few
people are going to buy that 'inexpensive' Brakhage DVD unless they
have some acquaintance with Brakhage. And how do people in 'the
sticks' get such an acquaintance? By things like UbuWeb and Karagarga
where they can try things out. _Pirates buy more content_ because
they've had a path to explore their inquisitiveness within their
financial means, develop the taste and appreciation for free that are
the pre-conditions for making any kind of financial investment.
Virtually every form of modern cultural production works this way --
first one's free kid, then you pay when you want more and better. The
clearest example being the relationship between radio airplay and
recording sales in pop music, but it's true (if in somewhat diluted
form) in other mediums as well.
> If no one pays for anything and everyone insists on getting
> everything for free,
But that is not the case...
> we will ONLY have the corporations and the work they produce,
> because no one else will be able to afford to produce anything.
Which brings up the question, 'how is anyone able to afford to produce
anything NOW?' And the answer is NOT, 'because of the income generated
by coop rentals and/or print/dvd sales.' If we ask 'what are the
economics of being an experimental filmmaker?' we immediately confront
the fact that the work itself has little direct market value due to
the lack of auratic status inherent in it's mechanical
reproducability. AFAIK, no one has ever made a living from the
receipts of experimental films. The economic value of such filmmaking
has always resided in the notoriety it brings to the maker, the kind
of opportunities for other channels of income opened by having one's
work circulated, noticed, appreciated. These include the ability to
obtain grants and other subsidies, to obtain academic positions, and
to increase the value of creative work the artist may do in more
auratic forms. Matthew Barney is the master of the latter, but I'm
sure Michael Snow's sculptures are worth more because he's Michael Snow.
We may like this situation or not (I'd rather things worked
differently myself) but that's how it is, has been, and is likely to
be. Internet forms like UbuWeb don't change that basic equation.
I too think it's nice if Marilyn gets some royalty payments, but
she'll more in the long run the more people know who Stan was and what
his work was like, which doesn't happen by magic. And since 'Cats
Cradle' and 'Window Water...' are on the DVD I wonder if Jane Brakhage
or Carolee Schneemann are getting a cut, and if not, where's the moral
economy in that?
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:57:56 +0000
From: David Tetzlaff <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Message-ID: <email suppressed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Anna Biller wrote:
> The internet creates a sense of flattened relativism in which
> everything loses its context and sense of scale and history.
As an example she cites:
> the way [people] use YouTube and Facebook to select works and share
> them, almost as if their selection of the work is the same as making
> the work.
This is the sort of critique of postmodern culture that comes out of
Fred Jameson's 'Culture of Late Capitalism' essay, or Baudrillard's
'Ecstacy of Communication.' I think this does occur, and I do find it
worrisome. I have seen video blogs consisting of nothing but
selections of other clips from around the web that I think qualify as
works of art because of the genuine creativity, amount of work, and
the effective aesthetic results of the choices made in pulling clips
together and establishing connections/collisions between them. But
such examples are rare and I do see a lot of the Jamesonian flattening
Anna notes.
But...
This is not what people mean when they say 'viewing a work is as
creative as making one.' First of all, that's phrased as hyperbole.
The 'is' is too definitive and universal, and 'as creative as'
indicates a false equality. It would be more accurate to say 'Viewing
is usually an act that involves a significant exercise of creativity
on the part of the viewer.' This is basically the 'active audience'
thesis that drives Cultural Studies. My own conclusion is that this
sort of active engagement, the affectless pomo reflecting screen, and
a more Frankfurt School ideological transmission all occur in our
culture side by side.
The active audience thesis stems from basic principles of semiotics.
The work of art is an object, with elements that act as symbols. These
symbols have no intrinsic meaning. They must be assembled, interpreted
and engaged by whoever perceives them. There is a lot of wiggle-room
in this process. So the mute object only becomes a meaningful work of
art once someone 'reads' it, and invests meaning into it, which is
inevitably a sort of indirect dialogic process. Academic studies like
Henry Jenkins' 'Textual Poachers' may overstate the case, but there's
too much evidence for the basic thesis to dismiss it entirely.
And certainly, experimental film is a form that engenders active
engagements. I'd guess for most folks on this list, early encounters
with experimental work yielded a good share of 'WTF?' reactions,
followed by struggles to parse the text, leading to a variety of
interpretations rooted in part in each viewer's unique life experiences.
Perhaps some UbuWeb users wind up engaging the clips there in the
worst sort of YouTube reflecting-screen pomo fascination. But that's
hardly Ubu's fault. Ubu has clearly been a portal by which a
significant number of people who would not otherwise been exposed to
avant garde work have found their way to some knowledge/interest/
appreciation. As Jeanne Liotta noted, in the long run that benefits
our 'community' as a whole, and we all can benefit individually from
the health in that community.
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:27:29 -0400
From: Shelly Silver <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Message-ID: <email suppressed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes
'there is no such thing as intellectual property'
godard
alas, his films are distributed by the most stingy of distributors
(less to do with his choice but his financing at the time)
i think artists have far more to lose from copyright laws and the like
then to gain. we're just brainwashed to not see it so (akin to the
poor identifying with the rich, with the logic, 'one day when i am
rich...')
free culture:
http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/
best,
shelly
On Oct 15, 2010, at 6:09 AM, David Tetzlaff wrote:
> I usually find Anna Biller's posts to list to be thoughtful and sharp
> whether I agree with them or not. But the msg. below makes me wonder
> if Matt Helme is spoofing Ms. Biller's email address:
>
>> If they really cared and
>> wanted to support experimental film they could buy an inexpensive
>> Brakhage DVD on Amazon and have it shipped to them internationally,
>> and then Marilyn Brakhage could make a dollar or two or fifty cents
>> which would be nice.
>
> Of course, 'they' do buy the DVDs. What is missing from the discussion
> of film-art-economics an analysis of how audiences for experimental
> work come to exist -- what has to occur in the life of an individual
> to make them want to see experimental films, rent experimental prints,
> buy experimental DVDs. How is an appreciation for this out-of-the-
> mainstream work acquired, and how does it grow and expand? Very few
> people are going to buy that 'inexpensive' Brakhage DVD unless they
> have some acquaintance with Brakhage. And how do people in 'the
> sticks' get such an acquaintance? By things like UbuWeb and Karagarga
> where they can try things out. _Pirates buy more content_ because
> they've had a path to explore their inquisitiveness within their
> financial means, develop the taste and appreciation for free that are
> the pre-conditions for making any kind of financial investment.
>
> Virtually every form of modern cultural production works this way --
> first one's free kid, then you pay when you want more and better. The
> clearest example being the relationship between radio airplay and
> recording sales in pop music, but it's true (if in somewhat diluted
> form) in other mediums as well.
>
>> If no one pays for anything and everyone insists on getting
>> everything for free,
>
> But that is not the case...
>
>> we will ONLY have the corporations and the work they produce,
>> because no one else will be able to afford to produce anything.
>
> Which brings up the question, 'how is anyone able to afford to produce
> anything NOW?' And the answer is NOT, 'because of the income generated
> by coop rentals and/or print/dvd sales.' If we ask 'what are the
> economics of being an experimental filmmaker?' we immediately confront
> the fact that the work itself has little direct market value due to
> the lack of auratic status inherent in it's mechanical
> reproducability. AFAIK, no one has ever made a living from the
> receipts of experimental films. The economic value of such filmmaking
> has always resided in the notoriety it brings to the maker, the kind
> of opportunities for other channels of income opened by having one's
> work circulated, noticed, appreciated. These include the ability to
> obtain grants and other subsidies, to obtain academic positions, and
> to increase the value of creative work the artist may do in more
> auratic forms. Matthew Barney is the master of the latter, but I'm
> sure Michael Snow's sculptures are worth more because he's Michael
> Snow.
>
> We may like this situation or not (I'd rather things worked
> differently myself) but that's how it is, has been, and is likely to
> be. Internet forms like UbuWeb don't change that basic equation.
>
> I too think it's nice if Marilyn gets some royalty payments, but
> she'll more in the long run the more people know who Stan was and what
> his work was like, which doesn't happen by magic. And since 'Cats
> Cradle' and 'Window Water...' are on the DVD I wonder if Jane Brakhage
> or Carolee Schneemann are getting a cut, and if not, where's the moral
> economy in that?
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:41:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Mark Toscano <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Message-ID: <email suppressed>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
I agree with Steve here, but the big difference is that VDB is working
with the artists directly, and has their permission (and probably even
encouragement) to post those clips. It's part of VDB's promotion of the
work, and is a great way to get a sense of something in order to decide
whether or not to show it. Lux and Light Cone do the same.
I'm all for the access aspect of ubu in a way, but the artists are
generally not being given a choice of how their work is to be
represented. It's funny that some people here seem to think that the
artists are just being obstructionist about the ubu thing. I think a
LOT of artists would happily provide work to them to host (perhaps with
reasonable restrictions or stipulations), but aside from a few examples
I know of (Andy Lampert, Pete Rose, etc.), ubu is not seeking that
dialogue with the artists. (And in Pete's case, he provided the work
himself.) Again, my favorite example of abomination here is David
Rimmer's Surfacing on the Thames, which is a ludicrously unwatchable
video accompanied by a borrowed text explaining how subtle and beautiful
the film is.
And I agree that those who have been touched by a work do have certain
rights "to" it, but they're not equal to the artist's rights. They're
not even in the same broad category. When someone is the sole author of
a film, why don't they have control over whether they want to change or
destroy it? We may not like it as viewers/historians/whatever, but the
artist may hate it for the work to continue to exist. Three of Bob
Nelson's early films are unrecoverable because he destroyed them.
Fragments remain. He's mildly regretful about one, maybe two of them,
but ultimately it's not a big deal to him. Thom Andersen wanted to show
one of them (Superspread) in a Cal Arts class once, and I had to tell
him Nelson destroyed it. He was really bummed ("wow.... i really liked
that movie and it had a big impact on me"). I told Nelson what he said,
and he said, "huh. well, maybe I shouldn't have destroyed it."
Over many years, Stanley Kubrick did everything he could to accumulate
and destroy all surviving prints of his first feature, Fear and Desire.
Of course people were still eager to see it, if not more so because of
this action. When a print turned up unexpectedly at George Eastman
House in the '90s or so, they preserved it and planned a NYC screening.
(Note - Kubrick did not own the rights to it, but I'm talking more about
artist's rights here.) Kubrick got in touch with them and very
emphatically tried to get them to not show it. If memory serves, they
didn't, and they made a specific arrangement with Kubrick regarding
how/when they would show the film (at least while he was still alive -
in-house at GEH only, to researchers and in public screenings at their
theater only). Some time after Kubrick died, they started loaning it
outside GEH.
I'm imagining a similar scenario with ubu - Ken Jacobs tells them to
stop hosting his files, they counter-offer something, perhaps that
they'll stream them only, no downloads, Ken perhaps agrees, everyone's
in accordance (enough to keep going, anyway).
I don't think the artist has final say, but only from a practical
standpoint more than a moral one. Once something is out there, people
WILL bootleg it. I can tell without doubt that the Awful Backlash video
on ubu is clearly lifted from a digibeta that I made at a lab to provide
the film to German TV for them to use an excerpt for a short piece on
Bob Nelson a few years ago. And the text accompanying it is one that I
used AS A JOKE for the Oberhausen program in 2006. Which leads to my
main beef with ubu's film section - the lazy "curating".
I've been following their site pretty much since it began, way before
the film/video section existed. They've always had a fairly strong
curatorial identity and I know they worked with artists on some amount
of their content. But when the film section came along, it was clearly
just shit trolled on the internet and dumped in a pile for users to sift
through, with no regard to quality, presentation, or curatorial vision.
Seems to me that everything about that section of the site is just lazy
and passive. Talk about viewer's/curator's rights - curating comes with
certain responsibilities if you're going to claim those rights.
Bottom line - I think it would at least be respectful of ubu to attempt
to reach filmmakers about hosting their work, because I do think they'd
get more yes than no. Their 'hall of shame' thing was petty, stupid,
and uninformed - good they dumped it a while back. If an artist doesn't
want their stuff up on ubu, then ubu should take it down. Why is that a
big deal? It doesn't mean that film is suddenly completely removed from
public view. It just means it's no longer being made available without
the artist's permission on a site at questionable quality, and if the
artist isn't comfortable with that, they shouldn't be vilified for it.
And note that none of what I talked about here had to do with financial
gain.
Mark Toscano
--- On Fri, 10/15/10, Steve Polta <email suppressed> wrote:
From: Steve Polta <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
To: "Experimental Film Discussion List" <email suppressed>
Date: Friday, October 15, 2010, 5:43 AM
It is my understanding that the advent of exp. film on DVD (e.g.
Brakhage) has negatively impacted the film co-ops' circulation of work,
presumably due to schools' use of DVD in the classroom as opposed to
renting films. This not only diminishes the income paid to filmmakers by
co-ops but also impacts the viability of the co-ops.
Speaking as a curator, I can say that online access to preview copies of
artists' work (even in excerpt/sample form) greatly facilitates the
curatorial process and has definitely led to me including new-to-me
work/artists in programs I have curated for San Francisco Cinematheque.
(For the record, these rentals have always been acquired from artists or
distributors and have always been paid.)
Regarding Beverly O'Neill's reference to the distribution co-ops'
participation in this process, it's notable that Video Data Bank
(VDB) *does* provide public access to samples of artists' work. Again,
speaking as a curator, I can say that this service has led directly to
rentals and exhibition. Providing this access would be a wonderful
service a distributor could provide its artists. I know it's easier said
than done. I would encourage any artists in a position to effect a
positive change in this area to organize and encourage this service from
their distributors.
Steve Polta
--- On Thu, 10/14/10, Beverly O'Neill <email suppressed> wrote:
From: Beverly O'Neill <email suppressed>
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] UbuWeb...HACKED!
To: "Experimental Film Discussion List" <email suppressed>
Date: Thursday, October 14, 2010, 9:41 PM
Dear Frameworkers, ?UBU always sparks
livelihood anxieties in me, not for my generation which has been around
for 45 years of filmmaking, but for those who are beginning to make work
or struggling with mid-career anxieties. ?The scarcity of venues,
grants, awards, faculty positions, -- well, everyone here knows what
goes on that list. ?UBU plays a very minor role, yeah/nay, in that
equation. ?Just trying to think of ways to rekindle some of the spirit
we all felt when Canyon and Anthology began. ? ?It would be wonderful if
we could (Frameworkers, co-ops, Anthology whatever) if we could revive
the Maya Deren lifetime achievement award and present it annually to
several media makers. ?Suppose the co-op, I'm thinking of Canyon because
I know them, ?set up a way to digitize work and took a % ?from the sales
of DVDs. ?Could we broaden our focus and support for emerging exhibition
groups by watching previews on-line (via Youtube/whatever) of new
pieces, and offer critical feedback. ? ?The diversity of experiences
and knowledge represented on this list has the capacity to imagine and
realize some viable options that would enrich the culture younger
artists work in. ?Frameworks serves an invaluable role in this new era.
?Using new tools what else can we do.?All props to this list.Beverly O'
??
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
End of FrameWorks Digest, Vol 5, Issue 29
*****************************************
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks