- CineZine
Opinions
-
Histories
- Reviews
PLEASURE DOME'S "NEW TORONTO
WORKS"
Opinion by John Porter, October 2013
Pleasure Dome Board Members, 1989-2020
Facebook
Thread on Pleasure
Dome's Group Page
October 30, 2013 to July 6,
2014 (continued)
PAGE 2, January 6 to July 6, 2014
Return to PAGE 1 /, October 30, 2013 to January 5, 2014
Continue to PAGE 3
John Porter
Sorry Dan, I forgot to use our new agreed-upon term. There was no limit
to the type of newfangled thingamawhatsit projector used to project
newfangled thingamawhatsits, and no limit to the type of video projector
used to project videos.
Jan 6. 1 Like: Dan Browne.
John Porter
Dan, there is nothing in the policy to prevent film works from being
screened digitally, just a maximum of 50% digital projection. It'd be
difficult to determine which digitally projected works were once newfangled
thingamawhatsits and which ones weren't, so PD doesn't make a policy
of determining that.
Jan 6.
John Porter
David Frankovich, I hope nobody has hesitated to post a comment here
out of fear that you will label their comment absurd or silly. That's
why Eli stressed "civility so that...no one feels they’re
being silenced". Even before your comment, a well known Toronto
film & videomaker told me that he/she had just left PD's fb group
because PD is "a toxic mess", which you may be aware of, having
been on the PD board for some years until recently.
Jan 6.
John Porter
Pleasure Dome's Winter 2014 season program has just been posted on its
website homepage: http://pdome.org/
Jan 7. 1 Like: Clint Enns.
Clint Enns
It is worth asking, in a given season, does PD met their mandate? That
is, is 50% of the work shown projected on film?
Could PD clarify if this mandate still enforced?
Could PD clarify their position on whether work shot on film and finished
on video counts as "film proper" or "video proper"?
If neither, how is PD planning on rectifying this inconsistency?
Jan 7.
John Porter
Clint, I can answer your first 2 Qs - a resounding NO! It's why I was
confident to say in my original post, "disregarding its own written
mandate". In their 40 screenings since September 2011 they have
projected an average of 20% on newfangled thingamawhatsit. No single
season has had close to 50% newfangled thingamawhatsits.
But they don't bother to calculate the % of screen time or financial
resources as required by their mandate. They just compare the NUMBER
of newfangled thingamawhatsits and videos in a program. If more than
half are videos then it's counted as an all video program, ditto with
newfangled thingamawhatsits.
As for your 3rd Q, you should define "film proper"
and "video proper". Is "film proper" your suggested
term to replace "newfangled thingamawhatsit"? Therefore "video
proper" means video shown on a video projector as opposed to video
shown on a newfangled thingamawhatsit projector? And therefore "film"
(shown on a video projector) is not proper film, and "video"
(shown on a newfangled thingamawhatsit projector) is not proper video?
Jan 7.
Clint Enns
"film proper" -> shot on film and projected on film.
"video proper" -> shot on video and projected on video.
Jan 7.
Clint Enns
I personally might consider something projected digitally a "film"
if it was shot on film and finished digitally (like Peter Hutton's Three
Landscape) but I'm not a purist about these things.
Jan 7.
John Porter
Well it's not perfect, but much better than David Frankovich's absurd
and silly "newfangled thingamawhatsit" which is much more
difficult to type than "film proper". I'll use it from now
on, here. And I like the implication that film projected on video is
not proper. Ha! But it begs the question, are there ANY video purists,
outraged and insisting that "Video shown on a film projector is
not proper video!"??
Jan 7.
John Porter
OK, so getting back to your 3rd Q to PD, as I commented (yesterday now),
it'd be very difficult to determine which works finished on video were
shot on film and which ones weren't (remember Dan's example of found
footage works), so I'm certain PD doesn't do that.
Jan 7.
David Frankovich
John, civil discourse is dependent not only the ability to express an
opinion, but on the ability to express disagreement with another's opinion
as well. You made a point that I disagreed with, and I responded explaining
why. Others have subsequently contributed to the discussion in ways
that I think further illustrate the point that I was making. If you
disagree with that point, you are more than welcome to offer a rebuttal.
The simple fact that my opinion differs from yours in no way means that
you are being silenced. You are free to express your opinion, as I am
mine, as is anyone else. In turn, we are also free to critique each
other's opinions. If anything I have said is in any way silly, you are
more than welcome to say so (I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with "bojangled
jinglemabuttsit").
That said, I would politely suggest that personal beefs have no place on this thread. If you have a problem with me, personally, a private message would be more appropriate, so as to ensure the thread stays on topic.
With respect to the PD board, my experience of it was
far from what would be described as a "toxic mess." I've seen
what that looks like, so I can safely say that at the time that I stepped
down, the board was as healthy as any I've ever seen, and in very good
hands.
Jan 7. 3 Likes: Eli Horwatt, RayRay McRabies, Nick Fox-Gieg.
David Frankovich
Clint, in my experience it was, but it rather depends on whether you
consider films projected digitally to count. Since the language of it,
as posted by John above, makes no mention of the means of projection,
that wording suggests that they ought to count. Clearly, however, this
is a point of contention. As a rule, though, film was projected on film
whenever possible.
Anecdotally speaking, one of the first programmes I brought to the collective was three rediscovered films from the McMaster Film Board from the 60s including one that Stephen Broomer had restored. Economics dictated that it had to be restored digitally rather than on film. Obviously, had a print existed that would have been preferable for the screening, but there was only the option to project as a file, which was nevertheless a very high quality. In my view, they were for all intents and purposes films, the fact that they had migrated to a digital medium notwithstanding. I felt it was worth screening because they were interesting both for aesthetic and historic reasons. I also felt it was in fitting both with the letter, and also with the spirit of our mandate to show film, especially because they had been neglected and unseen for decades.
However, one could argue that because it was screening
digitally it's not film "proper" and therefore doesn't count
towards the mandate. This is the absurdity that I referred to earlier.
The point of the mandate, in my opinion, should not be about petty bean
counting, but about championing precisely this kind of under appreciated
work. And that's why I think it's important to have a frank and open
discussion of just how absurd these distinctions have become. I'm sorry
if some people don't like that term, but I don't know how else to put
it. If PD were to interpret the mandate in terms of film or video "proper"
(in spite of the fact that it isn't explicitly stated anywhere) I really
think they'd be doing a disservice to the spirit of it, and ignoring
a lot of really great work. So, probably the time has long passed for
it to be revisited, but as with any institution, change is a real challenge,
especially when it comes to something that's clearly such a touchy subject.
Which is why, as I said earlier, there needs to be a more nuanced approach
with an expressed commitment to showing as diverse a range of work as
possible.
Jan 7. 3 Likes: Tara Snit, Eli Horwatt, Nick Fox-Gieg.
Jim Riley
Davd Francovich, if I may be so bold to comment on this interesting
discussion, I would like to comment on authorship of film footage as
to whether it be accepted as film proper, film hybrid or video proper.
In the situation where Hollywood footage has been appropriated as mentioned by Dan Browne and the reference to the McMaster Film Board footage, the original author is not mentioned. In fact, David Francovich mentions Stephen Broomer as if he is the artist rather than the young student in the sixities. I am aware of the McMaster Film group from interviewing Bruce Elder and a few others who actually created film during their university days.
In the Stephen Broomer restoration and digitizing, I would suggest that Stehen Broomer has appropriated the McMaster footage as he is mentioned rather than the original artist more than not in discussions. Broomer has appropriated film footage but it is really video now as that is how it is presented with little reference to the orginal artist. Broomer had a purpose to restoring the footage and it seems that it was to support his art writing/theories etc? The restored images are no more film than taking any other appropriated image/object to create a new piece of art. The weakness/strength is that Broomer has not altered or added to the original footage(I have not seen the restored moving images though).
The difference is that Broomer has gained a form of authoriship
of the footage by association.(no disrespect to Mr Broomer). He has
not been insistent enough to have the original artist acknowledged.
David Francovich did not feel compelled to acknowledge the original
film maker in making his point but acknowledges Broomer? I don’t
think that the restoration should be thought of as film proper but instead
an appropriation now called video hybrid of what the artist originally
did. Broomer continues to appropriate film footage and present it as
his work in a digitalized format in the most recent Hamilton Arts &
Letters issue.
Short Film Championship by Stephen Broomer - Fall Winter Hamilton Arts
& Letters magazine issue six.2 Fall/Winter 2013/14:
http://samizdatpress.typepad.com/fall_winter_hamilton_arts/short-film-championship-by-stephen-broomer.html
In this appropriation, Broomer alters it significantly to put his own
name on the work. I would see Broomer's Champion as video and not film.
It is all however a near mute point except to John Porter it seems. Media arts moves on. I do know and acknowledge that footage shot in film and screened in a video format does lose colour and texture quality. If the artist shoots in film or uses film footage but presents it in video format it should not be looked at as film. Film was merely part of the process in the creation of media arts. The film footage is no different than an artist using acrylic paint over oil paint in the creation of a painting. Film has become a medium to create an artwork.
It is a fascinating discussion though.
Jan 7.
David Frankovich
Hi Jim. Your point is well taken. I was remiss in failing to mention
the names of the artists from the programme, which were John Hofsess,
Peter Rowe, and David Martin. If you wish to find out more about the
programme in question, here's a link:
The Pleasure Principle | Pleasure Dome
http://pdome.org/2010/the-pleasure-principle/
That said, Broomer has in fact been quite insistent that the artists receive recognition for their work, Hofsess in particular, whose work would have continued to be ignored were it not for his restoration efforts. So, my omission should in no way reflect on him. I'm not sure I agree that restoration can be seen as an act of appropriation, as I don't think the work can be thought of as a derivative work, nor can the restorer be thought of as an author in this sense. Palace of Pleasure is and always will be Hofsess' film. I'm not really able to talk about the details of the restoration process, though, which you'd have to ask Stephen about if you're curious, particularly with respect to any issues pertaining to the state the film was in as compared with the quality of the final restoration.
To be fair the full details of the screening were not omitted as a slight to the artists, any more than previous comments which referred to the New Toronto Works show without mentioning the names of the artists should be thought of as a slight to them either. My point was simply the fact that the screening itself is a particular case example which would not have been possible if the mandate were assumed to mean only film and video "proper" (again, there's nothing in the language that suggests this), which I feel would be a detriment to the diversity of works programmed by PD, particularly with respect to neglected parts of our own film history, as the McMaster Film Board was a precursor to the CFMDC (again, Stephen can elaborate if you're curious).
I'm also as appreciative of the differences between screening a film print vs. a video transfer as you or John, which is why I always prefer to screen film as a print. In fact, when I curated the Barbara Sternberg and David Rimmer screening, that was projected entirely from film prints. It would have been ludicrous not to, as good condition prints were available. There is, of course, a difference between the state one finds films in if they are by canonical filmmakers like Sternberg or Rimmer, as opposed to Hofsess, whose film was left to rot. I'm not about to overlook the latter simply because its restoration and migration to a digital medium confounds easy categorization into someone else's idea of what films or videos are "properly" supposed to be.
As an aside, my last name is spelled "Frankovich"
though my first name alone should suffice, as there aren't any other
Davids in this thread to confuse me with.
Jan 7.
Clint Enns
Hi Jim,
Your points seem to contradict each other. Stephen's restoration is
not valid because it is not on film, yet John Porter's argument is not
valid because media art has moved on. Which is it?
Stephen's book on the McMaster Film Board will be released in the near future and should help bring recognition to these overlooked artists. I suggest you check it out. I can assure you it was written out of love.
On that note, although John has vested interest in this discussion, if Media Arts has moved on then maybe Pleasure Dome's mandate should reflect this.
David, I personally think moving images shot in film
and finished digital should count as "film," however, PD's
mandate should reflect this if this is their stance.
Jan 7. 2 Likes: Stephen Broomer, Nick Fox-Gieg.
Jim Riley
Clint Enns My mistake (sorry). I didn't see the restored work by Hofsess
etc. but if it was returned to 16 mm film then it was restoration. I
don't think that John Porter's argument is invalid as much as I believe
that media arts has moved beyond being concerned about when film is
used to create an artwork and present it in a video format. John has
a right to his view. The question about the 50/50 quota seems to be
the point that someone argued is not a written expectation? I don't
know. The quota is a different issue than film being used as a media
process to create media arts presented in video format. Using film footage
as Broomer did in Champion and presenting it in a video format is still
video imo.
Jan 7.
John Porter
David, you didn't address my point at all. Maybe you didn't read my
comment carefully, or are trying to put words in my mouth, like the
first time when you accused me of suggesting something when I was actually
just asking questions. I did not say you shouldn't disagree (as you
point out now, others have done so w/o bothering me). I said "I
hope nobody has hesitated to post a comment here out of fear that you
will label their comment absurd or silly". It's your choice of
words that bothered me. With your wide vocabulary you can choose to
use more civil words unless you intend to put a person down, akin to
bullying. You obviously haven't silenced ME, but you should be concerned
that your choice of words may silence someone else from making future
comments here. And you could've used a private message yourself when
using those words, just as you're suggesting I do. Practice what you
preach.
Jan 7.
Nick Fox-Gieg
@David Oh yeah, I remember helping out with the Stephen Broomer program!
We tried a ton of different codec ideas before settling on Apple ProRes;
the screening was somewhat marred by analog audio issues, but the images
looked gorgeous. If I recall, Stephen was really pleased.
In the years since, by the way, ProRes has become a standard for independent exhibition (commercial cinemas use a format called DCP, mostly for DRM reasons). Apparently digital projection isn't everyone's cup of tea, but personally, having seen my own work projected over the years on every film and video format except for 4K video and 70mm film, my lifetime best-quality screening so far was done from a ProRes file at the Alamo Drafthouse in Austin; sending them the file didn't cost a thing beyond the $8/mo. I pay my web host for unlimited storage space.
At the time, I remember you brought up the very good
point that we risked becoming dependent on Apple's proprietary codec--fortunately,
a couple years ago the BBC had the same concerns, and used their resources
to reverse-engineer it so it's now free for everyone (along with the
similar Avid DNxHD codec). I know offhand that Rooftop Films in NYC
and the Ottawa Animation Festival present everything this way by default,
unless the artist instructs otherwise.
Jan 7. 1 Like: David Frankovich.
Clint Enns
I am not really a purist about these things but I do believe that Toronto's
rich and vibrant "film proper" community should be represented
and not further marginalized. In general, the Toronto moving image community
is already pretty divided and PD should be attempting to unite the community.
Ideally, we should be celebrating diversity not marginalizing work based
on the format it was shot on.
Jim, I think Steve is just waiting for the funds to finish
Championship on film.
Jan 7. 1 Like: Dan Browne
Jim Riley
Clint Enns I'm a video artist and so it is a bit mystifying to me. How
do you suggest that the moving image community celebrate diversity without
marginalizing work based on the format? If fewer artists work in film
compared to video format is a 50/50 quota appropriate? (note I don't
know if fewer artists use film compared to video but it makes sense).
Jan 7.
Clint Enns
Simply by playing both and by viewing both mediums as having potential
artistic merit.
This discussion comes out of Cressida Kocienski's extreme
stance that film has no artistic merit anymore. Since NO works were
shown on film at the New Toronto Works this year (or last year...although
a tiny portion were shot on film and digitally finished), this raised
some questions about PD's commitment to showing work on film. Some members
of the community are curious if they are still respecting their mandate
or if the mandate has changed.
Jan 7.
Clint Enns
I personally think this is a reasonable inquiry.
Jan 7. 1 Like: Dan Browne.
Jubal Brown
film is dumb
Jan 7. 2 Likes: Clint Enns, Dan Browne.
Jubal Brown
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/372/949/af3.jpg
Jan 7. 2 Likes: Higgs Boatswain, Nick Fox-Gieg.
Dan Browne
Why, because it's too hard to edit to breakcore?
Jan 7. 1 Like: Clint Enns.
Nick Fox-Gieg
Making moving pictures with optics, chemicals, and motors is something
millions of people around the world eagerly want to keep on doing. Even
if these technologies fall out of favour commercially, they're never
going to disappear from the human art-making toolkit if enough people
are interested in preventing it--look, for example, at how successfully
the Impossible Project has rescued the Polaroid system.
What's quickly dying is _copying_ moving pictures with optics, chemicals, and motors. Evidently the vast majority of artists would prefer to make perfect copies of their original work for free, instead of using processes that're expensive and inherently lossy.
I don't know about you guys, but when I look at the only
surviving fifth-generation copy of a project from 1996--one of the few
times my pretty strict archiving efforts have failed--I don't think
"My, what interesting analog artifacts!" I think "Damn,
I wish I had the original."
Jan 7. 1 Like: John Porter.
John Porter
Thanks Nick! Correct, concise and amusing. But copying isn't everything.
I think the future of "film proper" is like painting - exhibit
the original (reversal camera stock) because it looks better than any
copy. Copies are OK for reference only. I've been showing my originals
for 45 years and expect to be able to do so for the rest of my life.
At least some artists will do the same. Even if it's only black &
white super 8 (the easiest and least expensive to manufacture and process)
I'll be happy, but not if even the most radical exhibitors refuse to
screen original films. And if the original deteriorates past the maker's
preference, it's not the end of the world, make another film, maybe
a better film. It's easy if your budgets are $50 (no copies!). I've
made 300 films for $50 each. I can keep making the same film over and
over if I want. Many ORIGINAL versions of the same film. What's better?
Jan 8. 1 Like: Edit · Clint Enns
Nick Fox-Gieg
Yeah, I love the searing bright colours of an original reversal print--it's
a unique art object meant to be exhibited by itself, not a master meant
to be hidden away and used as a template for copies. (Just like with
a film negative, the formats digital video master files are stored in
generally aren't something you can play back for an audience.)
But finishing on reversal film (vs. shooting) is an uncommon
practice. (I mean, my all-consuming passion for the last three years
has been writing Java programs to do puppet animation with game controllers.
I hope audiences enjoy the final products, but it's a weird, painstaking
process that I suspect most people find dull and maybe a little pointless,
given that there are a lot of easier ways to work. I like it though.)
In the case of negative film, where copying is inevitable, would screening
a digital copy be somewhat more acceptable?
Jan 8.
Ekrem Serdar
I wanted to jump into this interesting, 90+ comment list all the way
from Texas if I may. Somewhere up there is a proposal by Clint of a
ratio of
50 video,
25 shot on film, finished on video,
25 shot on film, finished on film
While it may sound like a joke making fun of finicky quotas, this (or
something of this nature) actually sounds reasonable to me.
I do consider the final projection format to be the end say in things
as it is what it is and different machines have different qualities
we cherish that I think are generally more detrimental than an originating
format. Video has certainly sharpened our appreciation of the "performative"
qualities of celluloid projection, and older video projectors would
obviously visualize our h264s quite differently. Despite the possibility
of fetishization, I continue to find projection format a useful distinction.
That said, it's naturally understandable that folk don't
want to finish on film for a variety of reasons, primarily cost and
access.
I think a 50/25/25 quota does have problems, among of which are that
it considers video to be a technological and budgetary totality, not
to mention the actual challenges of applying such a quota in real life.
That said, it is a preservative measure (if that's what PD is interested
in), continuing to ensure a place for celluloid TO (and continuing to
support it's technologies and processes and the artists interested in
them), while also being reasonable in regards to this day and age.
While I do understand, to some degree, the complaints about lazy uses
of celluloid, and how that becomes complaints about moody ruins, etc,
it would be presumptive to say that time has shown us all that celluloid
and it's machines can be and do.
Ok back to the free market with me! Have fun y'all,
Jan 8. 2 Likes: Eli Horwatt, Clint Enns.
John Porter
Nick, are you asking me? I'm sure most neg film shot is meant to go
straight to digital. I don't care what makers do. We all seem to agree
that the maker's preference is paramount. I just don't want makers like
me to be shut out by exhibitors. I want to see other work like mine
as much as possible. PD used to be very good for that, but not now,
which makes me sad. They have one of the best super 8 projectors in
Toronto, but rarely use it any more.
Jan 8.
David Frankovich
Actually, John, I did in fact read your comments carefully, and addressed
your point more than adequately.
To begin with, I only ever referred to points that you made, not to you, which is well within the bounds of civil discourse. Had I made a comment about you personally, you would be correct to say that I was not being civil, but as I did no such thing, your accusation of uncivil behaviour is baseless.
Moreover, there is nothing wrong with the word "absurd." It is quite commonly used, particularly when an "argumentum ad absurdum" is used to demonstrate why an idea is false. Also, the word "silly" (a synonym for absurd) wasn't even used in direct reference to anything you said, but was used to describe the example that I gave to illustrate my point. Given my "wide vocabulary" as you put it, I chose my words carefully and they were entirely appropriate in the context of my argument. In fact, absurd is the most appropriate word I could have used in that context. Please refer to my earlier point about the right not only to expression, but also to critique.
Finally, in spite of the offence you have taken to my use of the words "absurd" and "silly" you seem to have no problem using them yourself, which is rather hypocritical.
Now, I think that if we don't want anyone to feel reluctant
to participate in this discussion the best thing would be if everyone
can agree to keep their posts on topic. I've already responded to you
several times about this issue, John, and I don't have any more to say
about it. So, from now on I'm only going to post about the topic at
hand, and I hope that you will agree to do so as well, in the interest
of being civil.
Jan 8.
David Frankovich
Hypothetically, if the policy were to specify how much ought to be projected
on film vs. video, would it not also have to specify how much film ought
to be projected using super 8, 16mm, etc. or video using CRT, LCD, DLP,
etc.?
Or, to use the 50/25/25 ratio suggested, what about works shot on video and finished on film (rare, I know, but they do exist)? Or works shot using multiple mediums?
The current policy may be somewhat vague, but it seems
that the more specific the criteria become, the more problematic it
becomes.
Jan 8. 1 Like: Nick Fox-Gieg.
Nick Fox-Gieg
1% of all works must be transferred to QQVGA 3GP and played on a vintage
early-2000s Nokia candy-bar phone that's passed from person to person
around the theatre.
Jan 8. 4 Likes: Clint Enns, Jubal Brown, Ekrem Serdar, David Frankovich.
Jim Riley
I am going to re introduce the issue of curation into the mix. As I
understand the curator has refused to discuss publicly the rational
for the works selected. I have not read the curatorial statement that
went with the screening but it seems to be insufficient or this would
not have surfaced as an issue. Should film be screened with video or
are there really two different screening categories screened on different
nights or clearly distinguished with an intermission etc.? The argument
that film and video are equal and should not be separated seems weak
to me if there is also this argument about quotas. Curators may make
their decisions for selection based on factors other than the format.
Moving forward, PD’s Board should improve the instructions
to the curator(s) and consider whether a discussion is required for
a more public interaction on the works selected for screening. Why was
moving images one selected to be screened before moving images two etc.?
I suspect after a year or two, the community may change its view on
format. Whether the public or artist discussion with the curator grows
to be a mute point or the community is enriched by a community discussion
is yet to be decided.
Jan 8. 1 Like: Christian Muñoz Morrison.
Clint Enns
Thanks Ekrem!
This issue seems to be relevant beyond Toronto for those
who still feel this is simply John stirring the pot.
Jan 8. 2 Likes: Tara Snit, Ekrem Serdar.
Clint Enns
David,
The major problem is that this old mandate doesn't appear to be followed.
If the mandate is dated then it should be updated. How should it be
updated?
Either way I feel that PD should address the issue. A
panel discussion also seems in order. I wouldn't mind participating.
Jan 8. 1 Like: David Frankovich.
Ekrem Serdar
David - of course. All technologies need the love (especially CRTs actually).
As said, this would merely be a preservative measure, and as said, assumes
that video and film are some kind of totality (as opposed to the myriad
variations of what it can be). It would be for a process which is more
widely used and generally more expensive than say, pixelvision (or 3gps
on nokias :)). Again, this is only if it is something PD thinks is useful
in maintaining, considering it's own history and facilities, and it's
place within Toronto institutions dedicated to moving images.
Quotas are never fun to deal with from a programming
stand point - i'm sure it would lead to some video work having to be
left out in favor of some film (or vice versa). They're obviously meant
for a different purpose. If PD is interested in adopting one, it obviously
needn't be as strict as 50/25/25, but one that balances a degree of
freedom / strictness while being useful.
Jan 8. 1 Like: Clint Enns.
Nick Fox-Gieg
1% of all works must be 3D-printed in layers of cake frosting, then
sliced and served at the theatre.
Jan 8. 4 Likes: Jubal Brown, Clint Enns, Ekrem Serdar, David Frankovich.
John Porter
Clint, my original post was not just about Toronto. I ended with "...elsewhere
in Canada? How about internationally?".
Jan 8. 1 Like: Clint Enns.
John Porter
How would PD determine which works were "film" and which were
"video proper"?
Jan 8.
Nick Fox-Gieg
1% of all works must be scorched frame-by-frame onto planks of unfinished
oak by a laser cutter set to low power, used for firewood through the
winter, and the ashes scattered in the theatre come spring.
Jan 8. 2 Likes: Jubal Brown, David Frankovich.
Jubal Brown
it would be nice if they adopted a policy of showing a certain percentage
of GOOD WORK
Jan 8. 2 Likes: Clint Enns, Quinn T. Hornett.
Jubal Brown
ha, jk, love you pdome!
Jan 8.
Christian Muñoz Morrison
Wow Jubal! I like where you're taking this thread!
Jan 8.
Clint Enns
John, the "film" distinction might not be the best solution,
but it is the only solution being offered at this point. I would be
happy to hear more.
I think only the most dedicated purist would consider Peter Hutton's Three Landscapes a "video proper", despite its presentation format. It was clearly shot on 16mm and within a tradition. I am extremely curious how we transition into an age where some (of course not all) filmmakers are finishing digitally (a type of filmmaking that wasn't really an issue in 1993 when the PD revision was mandated). How does board, programming and community members see PD moving forward? I would hope that we can all agree that we would like to see a diverse range of moving image practices (with perhaps the exception of Cressida).
With that being said, I would be happy with this solution as well:
1/3 video proper
1/3 moving images shot on film and finished digitally
1/3 film proper
In fact, I personally would be happy with any solution
that feels as though it was attempting to fairly promote a diverse range
of moving image practices.
Jan 9. 1 Like: Luke Bellissimo.
Quinn T. Hornett
i'm not a member and am involved in the hamilton scene far more than
i am the toronto one, but it seems to be that curatorial practices for
a centre such as PD should be based on quality of the work as well as
the opportunity to showcase new and marginalized art. if there truly
exists a significant amount of good work in both video and film such
that their complete and equal exhibition is not possible at one space
such as PD, then another space will emerge to show the rest.
Sorry, but i don't really see the conversation about
medium specificity being much more than a process of counting angels
on the head of a pin
Jan 9. 1 Like: Higgs Boatswain.
Clint Enns
This is more of a problem concerning PD's mandate than simply a problem
concerning medium specificity. Is it wrong to hold a publicly funded
organization (which I am a member and regularly support) to be held
accountable to their mandate?
Jan 9.
Quinn T. Hornett
of course not. the mandate shouldn't be medium specific unless founders
wish to continually update the mandate as mediums develop and change
Jan 9.
Clint Enns
Quinn, that sounds quite reasonable. Even the loose statement:
"PD will attempt to fairly promote a diverse range of moving image
practices."
would make for a reasonable mandate in my eyes.
Unfortunately, even this mandate would have been broken
at PD's New Toronto Works screening this year given Cressida's hostile
(and regressive) stance towards works made on film.
Jan 9. 4 Likes: Tara Snit, Ekrem Serdar, Dan Browne, Stephen Broomer.
John Porter
(I wish the "return" key wasn't so close to the "delete"
key). Clint, I didn't disagree with your "film" distinction,
nor did I say that Peter Hutton's Three Landscapes should be considered
"video proper". You say "I think I know your stance John",
but I don't think you do. Anybody, what is my stance?
Jan 9. 1 Like: Clint Enns.
Nick Fox-Gieg
@John That unique reversal film prints constitute an often-misunderstood
special case of moving-image art, and should be treated differently
from the majority of moving-image art that's intended for mass duplication?
Jan 9.
John Porter
Quinn, I agree with you that "curatorial practices should be based
on quality of the work as well as the opportunity to showcase new and
marginalized art". And "film proper" is becoming more
and more marginalized. Also, many exhibitors are based on medium specificity.
Even w/o PD's mandate, it narrowly limits itself to film and video,
as many exhibitors do. Others limit themselves even more, to only "film
proper", or only video, while others limit themselves to only modern
dance, or only photography, or only performance art, while still others
choose to exhibit a bit of all of these different media. All these exhibitors
are justified, but I'm merely sorry to see PD leave behind "film
proper" more and more because it used to be my favourite Toronto
exhibitor of "film proper". I wouldn't mind so much them doing
that if they were more transparent about it. They should've changed
their mandate years ago from what it CLAIMS they do, to what they ACTUALLY
do, then informed their public funders so that another new group showing
an equal amount of "film proper" and video could've applied
for some of that money that PD has been receiving for doing that.
Jan 9. 1 Like: Clint Enns.
Nick Fox-Gieg
Wait, why does only reversal film get to be "film proper"?
As an artist who occasionally works with negative film, I'm inclined
to be offended.
Jan 9.
John Porter
Nick, who said only reversal film is "film proper"? We're
defining "film proper" as work projected on a film projector
(i.e - 35mm, 16mm, super 8, etc. projectors), including negative film
or non-reversal postive prints. Also, I'm not as tech-savvy as you are.
What is a "reversal film print"? I thought reversal print
film didn't exist anymore, and I have no idea what they use to make
prints from negs.
Jan 9. 2 Likes: Clint Enns, John Price.
Nick Fox-Gieg
Who's "we"? You've convinced me that a unique reversal film
print can't be replaced by an identical digital duplicate, but I maintain
there are no thorny ontological issues raised by projecting an identical
digital duplicate of a negative film intended for mass duplication.
How is the original artwork--the master negative--being treated any
differently when it's used as a source for digital copies, as long as
the copies are faithful?
Jan 9. 1 Like: John Price.
John Porter
Sorry to include you Nick. I'm assuming most of us, for the purposes
of this discussion, so we all know what we're referring to, will use
Clint's term "film proper" to refer to work finished and projected
on film, replacing David's term "newfangled thingamawhatsit".
What term would you prefer we all use instead? We all need to agree
on one term, so we'll know what we're referring to. I never spoke of
"reversal film print" because I don't know that term or what
it means. Is that a contact print made on reversal film from an original
reversal film? I thought you couldn't do that anymore. I don't know.
Jan 9.
John Porter
Nick, I have difficulty deciphering, but it sounds like you think that
a good digital copy can be identical to the same work shown on a film
projector. I can give several reasons why I disagree, but I particularly
liked Dan's recent comment, "...my heart will always be warmed
by the sound of film projection...". Digital projection can't duplicate
that wonderfully warm, organic feeling of listening to, and even watching,
a film projector in the same room with you while you are also watching
and listening to the film being projected. I know that sounds crazy,
and that's why I love it. It's a very unconventional, marginal and idiosyncratic
practice.
Jan 9.
Nick Fox-Gieg
Huh--if not "reversal film," what's the correct term for a
negative that you develop directly into a unique positive, instead of
making multiple positive prints from a master negative? Anyway yes,
if the artist's intention is to have a film projector present that the
audience can see and hear, of course this is another special case where
digital projection won't do the job. I'd like to steer us back to what
I maintain is the most common case, where an artist simply wants to
display many copies of an original work with the most faithful duplication
of picture and sound possible. Addressing this case only, what are the
reasons a digital copy would be inadequate?
Jan 10.
John Porter
If you're asking ME, you're asking the wrong person. I've never worked
with neg. I didn't say film processed directly into a unique positive
is not reversal film. I said it's not a "reversal film print"
- the term you used. It's an original, not a print. I also can't comment
on "the most common case". I revel in being uncommon. That's
why I chose super 8, and to not make any copies, let alone many copies.
Jan 10.
John Porter
Actually Nick, you've reminded me of a confusing film term I've heard
often - "original print", which I think is an oxymoron. "Print"
means copy, the antithesis of original. "First print" or "only
print" would mean something, but I think many people use "original
print" to mean the original film, which is incorrect. A film is
either THE original, or a print.
Jan 10. 3 Likes: Andrew James Paterson, Clint Enns, Nick Fox-Gieg.
Nick Fox-Gieg
Ah--didn't realize it was the "print" part that I had wrong.
Jan 10.
Melanie Wilmink
Hi everyone. Thanks so much for participating in this vibrant conversation!
I just wanted to chime in to let you know that, as one of Pleasuredome's
new board members, I am watching this thread with interest. The response
that this has generated from the community is exciting, and further
discussion is welcomed. We are currently planning some meetings soon
to work on a more personal forum for this to continue and hope that
you will all join us down the road once we have figured out what that
should look like. In the meantime, know that your input is valued and
I look forward to increased transparency and dialogue around our activities.
Jan 15. 8 Likes: John G Hampton, Clint Enns, Dan Browne, Andrew James
Paterson, Stephen Broomer, Erik Martinson, Scott Miller Berry, Nick
Fox-Gieg.
John Porter
Thanks Melanie! Can you represent the board? Nobody there, including
the President, has yet answered Clint's 3 questions posed to PD on Jan
7:
"It is worth asking, in a given season, does PD meet their mandate?
That is, is 50% of the work shown projected on film?
Could PD clarify if this mandate is still enforced?
Could PD clarify their position on whether work shot on film and finished
on video counts as "film proper" or "video proper"?
If neither, how is PD planning on rectifying this inconsistency?"
Jan 15. 1 Like: Clint Enns.
Nick Fox-Gieg
You know if the Nazis hadn't driven Walter Benjamin to suicide, he would
have likely lived long enough to solve this problem for us. (P.S. Godwin!)
Jan 15. 2 Likes: Tara Snit, Ekrem Serdar.
John Porter
Am I the only one here who doesn't know who Walter Benjamin is, or the
only one willing to admit it?
Jan 15. 1 Like: Clint Enns.
Melanie Wilmink
Hi John. I can pass the questions on to Tom and get some answers at
the next board meeting. I'd like to note though that I am a member of
the board, but we are a collective of indivduals with our own viewpoints
and opinions, so I only represent myself in this discussion. Facebook
is not the ideal forum to properly represent all these viewpoints, which
is why I feel like an in person forum would be a great way to continue
this discussion in a really productive way. Also, Nick Fox-Gieg, I'm
pretty sure Benjamin would have been purposely ambiguous about it
Jan 15. 3 Likes: Clint Enns, Dan Browne, Erik Martinson.
Melanie Wilmink
Haha, I happen to be using him for my school stuff right now. I don't
know what Godwin is though.
Jan 15.
Nick Fox-Gieg
Walter Benjamin: Legendary martyred art critic. Godwin's Law: "As
an argument gets longer, the probability that someone will mention Nazis
approaches 1."
Jan 15. 3 Likes: Clint Enns, Jubal Brown, Melanie Wilmink.
Higgs Boatswain
Dear all
It is I, the Dread Pirate Roberts!*
To clear up any ambiguity, I am Cressida, and I co-curated this year's work with Francisco-Fernando Granados.
Thanks for all your comments. It appears a nerve has been touched, and perhaps we can all learn from it as a community. ONWARD!
I am not unavailable or unaccountable, and neither is Francisco. I just have not seen or sought out this particular thread, and asked John Porter to stop emailing my private email account, and to send it through the PD email so we could address it through more official channels, and I didn't get sucked into a lengthy conversation which seems to be based on mutually irreconcilable differences in priorities.
If you are critiquing the work and haven't had a chance to read our curatorial statement, then please do. I will not speak for Francisco, but my background is in video, art writing and architecture. My research interest is in the voice and space, and the artists whom I most admire are Robert Smithson, Ursula Biemann, John Akomfrah, Chris Marker, Chris Kraus, Trinh T. Minh-ha, Patrick Keiller, Adam Curtis, Tacita Dean, Elizabeth Price, Beatrice Gibson, Derek Jarman, that sort of thing -- heavily voice and language-based moving-image practices. A lot of these are very Anglo-centric, but I am an English immigrant. I'm interested in the site and non-site of works, the extraction and distribution of images, and the ethics of image-making about space. Many of these issues are tied into the economy of residencies, spatial agency, the experience economy, the democratisation of the technologies of image making, and the internet.
The most pressing and interesting issues of our time, I myself believe, are mapping, migration, representation, labour flows, decolonisation, digital ontologies, cyborg ethics, the environment, and also the idea of nun-human agency. How might these voices presented polyphonically? Are (digital) moving image practices best equipped to think about these emergent subjectivities? Coming from a call and collections this is not what we may have achieved with NTW, but I hope it explains my interests clearly.
Before curating this screening, I was not instructed to include percentages of formats, and to be frank with you I find the idea absurd and depressingly Soviet -- and I do not mean fun constructivist experimental period, but the worst in bureaucrat-administered stagnant Soviet Realism. I would not have done it had it been so, or had I been forced to show 50% of anything. Why would anyone bother to curate if a quota can do the job? Francisco and I really enjoyed working together, talking about the work, and we were excited to include voices from many of the diverse communities that make Toronto so full of potential. We tried to include work that was from more established artists, as well as artists that were just beginning their respective journeys.
I asked for digital submissions only this year, because I spent a good proportion of the curatorial time in the summer away working in diverse regions with varying access to the internet, and to make it easier to co-ordinate with Francisco who is also extremely busy. To clear up any accusations of not including works from CFMDC, I can assure you that we did watch the list of submissions and decided that the works at Vtape were more interesting for us. Also, most festivals now offer links as submissions, and it is a much more efficient way of conducting work for which one is not remunerated in anything other than a nominal way. None of us have a great deal of financial agency, I'd imagine, and so it's good make like the 21st century and to minimise labour.
Now, to the crux of the matter. I am not that interested in work that purports to be experimental film, but doesn't seem to perform any real experiments. Now, this *is* a highly subjective position, but much as I am not particularly interested in tapestry, bronze sculpture, or watercolour painting qua themselves, I am not interested in hand-processed film of things that isn't trying to connect to any contemporary becomings. This is exactly why onanistic format-nostalgia is such a turn-off for me. Film practice can historically be connected to a certain subjectivity, that one has to be mindful of, and although it *can* be subverted I prefer to see some hard work done to think about the choices made. As mentioned, and speaking in generalities and without wish to offend anyone in particular, there are really only so many crackly films of things with drone soundtracks that I can watch. It hurts my teeth. That's okay though, many people are not in any way interested in the kind of work I make or like, and now I seem to be a figurehead for the vitriolic resentment of an entire community. But, in the spirit of PD we can say that the Higgs Boatswain (incidentally pronounced Boson, if you want to continue to curse me in all the inns and ginhouses) does not submit itself to censorship.
Canonical Michael Snow and Hollis Frampton and Stan Brakhage et. al. were radical and blew the lid off moving image practice in their time. Now, however, I think that the most interesting artists are working in the emergent and defining technologies of our era. For the first time in the history of the world, we (the privileged) as mere mortals have had access to the most incredible high-resolution and beautiful way to transport jaw-dropping cinematic beauty in pixel-perfect precision. Huzzah!
This summer I was lucky enough to teach an experimental
workshop to 18-26 year old Kurdish people in Diyarbakir, SE Turkey.
Here is the syllabus:
Experimental Film Workshop
http://experimentalfilmworkshop.blogspot.ca/
It was amazing to present people with tools from some of these works
that have shaped my practice (some of them film-based) and see the really
interesting works that they came back with, using their (digital) cameras
to think about their city space.
I would love to engage further in conversations about content, rather
than form, and form as content if it is constructive rather than just
percentage-based. It is my hope that we can change the (tear up the)
mandate and all get on with our lives.
Warm swarms,
Cressida
*As an argument gets longer, the probability that someone
will mention the Princess Bride approaches 1.
Feb 1. 9 Likes: Brian Kent Gotro, Eli Horwatt, Clint Enns, Nick Fox-Gieg,
Francisco-Fernando Granados, Sissy Bam, Jonah Falco, Erik Martinson,
Jean-Paul Kelly.
Higgs Boatswain
And yet again I pressed return before a final copy edit, so please forgive
them.
Feb 1. 1 Like: Erik Martinson.
Higgs Boatswain
And finally, this is a message from the other curator: I am not included
as a member in the Pleasure Dome group, so I have to post this through
Cressida. I am Francisco-Fernando Granados, Cressida’s co-curator.
Approximately a year ago, upon the request of the Pleasure Dome board,
I was approached by my friend, colleague, and collaborator Cressida
Kocienski to work together on a curatorial project for their upcoming
‘New Toronto Works’ screening in the Fall of 2013. I am
a Guatemalan-born, Toronto-based artist, writer, and education primarily
working in performance, but with a broad set of disciplinary interests
that have lead to fruitful collaborations like the one I share with
Cressida. I have curated gallery exhibitions and performance programs
in Toronto and Vancouver, and I teach Critical and Curatorial Studies
at OCADU. It was our shared interest in language and contextual, politicized,
contemporary spatial practices that structured the curatorial program
for last year’s screening.
Cressida and I had no knowledge of any mandate for quotas regarding medium specificity when we were asked to curate the event. I did not know about this mandate until after the screening. I worked on the project with the extremely limited resources that unfortunately characterize artist-run venues that endeavor to present critical experimental work because of the deep respect I have for Cressida as a thinker and as a maker. I would not have accepted the opportunity if I had known about a medium-based restriction. My curatorial practice is primarily concerned with a contextual aesthetic and political engagement with contemporary issues of representation. Toronto is a city with a broad range of practices, populated by artists who make work from a variety perspectives that articulate issues around gender, sexuality, cultural/racial/global experiences, Indigenous rights, ability, political activism, and so many others that I cannot list here. For me, decisions around medium (film vs. video, performance vs. drawing) are a matter of artistic choice, and not the primary category for deciding whether a work is worth showing or not.
In our curatorial essay, we quoted Rosalind Krauss’
seminal work on the expanded field as a way to propose a reframing,
an opening of the terms that structure the landscape of media art in
the city. As I have said before, the curatorial choices we made for
the show are a done deal. The essay provides a more articulate explanation
of our rationale. I stand by every choice we made in that program. I
am honoured to have worked with Cressida on the project. You are welcome
to disagree with our curatorial premise and with our methodology, but
ad hominem attacks and thinly veiled strategies of intimidation and
harassment are completely unacceptable.
Feb 1. 8 Likes: Brian Kent Gotro, Clint Enns, Kevin Hegge, Alexis Kyle
Mitchel, Nick Fox-Gieg, Jean-Paul Kelly, Jonah Falco, Higgs Boatswain.
Clint Enns
I personally agree whole-heartedly with the freedom to put together
a program based around your curatorial desires!
Regrettably, it was accompanied "by [an] ad hominem attack[-s] and thinly veiled strateg[-ies][+y] of intimidation and harassment" directed towards the artists working with film by Cressida at the screening which I personally find to be offensive towards those artists. This was not an attack based on the content of their work, but on the medium in which they work. This has unfortunately (or fortunately) created a debate surrounding PD's mandate.
Once again, since PD is a government funded organization, a fair mandate might be:
"PD will attempt to fairly promote a diverse range of moving image practices."
If the screening had not been accompanied by a provocative
direct attack against a medium (namely, film), I'm sure we would not
be having this discussion today.
Feb 1. 6 Likes: James Gillespie, Leslie Supnet, Dan Browne, Stephen
Broomer, Blake Williams, John Porter.
Christian Muñoz Morrison
Strateg[y]?
Feb 1.
Clint Enns
Strategies[-ies] + [y]? I will consult the chicago manual of style and
get back to you.
Feb 1. 1 Like: Christian Muñoz Morrison.
Anthony Easton
as a photographer who works in digital media, and gave up analog, and
who is curious about film, and whose artist list and interest is fairly
close to cressida's, i feel like i cannot make film or video. as a curator
who has worked in a wide variety of media, i feel as if i cannot construct
showings of videos, in toronto, because the culture is so interior.
the discourse here, is so bureaucratic, that part of the diversity of
new voices, is allowing people who have not fully absorbed two decades
of internecine sniping. i wonder if that is possible here? spending
time in edmonton's modernist hertiage, i wonder if the interest in film
for films sake is a similar formalist concern that maybe has been answered?
i guess i am sticking my neck out, and i know that in photography, the
politics and aesthetics of preservation and printing are major concerns,
and i can imagine that film has some overlap, but i really don't see
the sin in finishing digitally. i also, wonder john, maybe you could
talk about the intersection of problems of media hybridity and film
quotas? i hate that i feel like i cannot curate or make film or video
in toronto.
Feb 2. 1 Like: Higgs Boatswain.
Anthony Easton
also, john--what do you think of tactia dean?
Feb 2.
John Creson
FWIW, the initial call for submissions Pleasure Dome's New Toronto Works
screening from Jan 30 2013 read as follows:
Feb 2.
John Creson
Call For Submissions: New Toronto Works
Now in it’s 20th year, New Toronto Works is old enough to drink
in Ontario, and almost old enough to drink all over North America!
Curated by Cressida Kocienski and Francisco-Fernando Granados, Pleasure
Dome’s annual screening showcases the city’s freshest film
and video works.
To submit, kindly send a link, bio and single page synopsis to newtorontoworks@gmail.com.
Works have been produced after January, 2011 and should not exceed 15
minutes in length.
Submission Deadline: Friday, February 22, 2013
www.pdome.org
Feb 2.
John Porter
Anthony, I think you're missing the point. Nobody is saying it's a sin
to finish digitally, and opinions of any artist's work is beside the
point. For the purpose of this discussion let's agree that all art media
are equally deserving of attention. Let's not exclude work based on
its format, such as film. And about "the intersection of problems
of media hybridity and film quotas"? Great! I love problems, and
trying to solve them! It inspires creativity! Art making and presentation
without any problems would be boring and pointless. I agree with some
of your criticisms about Toronto. Many artists have a love-hate relationship
with Toronto, but other cities too, and Facebook, etc. It's another
interesting problem.
Feb 2.
Anthony Easton
We can acknowledge the problems, do you want to posit solutions?
Feb 2.
John Porter
Include films, videos and hybrids in New Toronto Works. Do not exclude
film. Do what you say you do. Don't say "we show at least 50% film",
then show only 20%.
Feb 2.
Higgs Boatswain
In the interests of transparency, I am unsubscribing from this thread.
Please collate your comments for discussion in the upcoming public referendum
where Pleasure Dome will discuss Man Dates.
Feb 2. 2 Likes: Kevin Hegge, Alexis Kyle Mitchell.
Dan Browne
This thread has some interesting similarities with the recent kerfuffle
Double Double Land encountered re. Awesome Tapes From Africa. In both
cases questions have been raised w/ the potential to clarify, enhance,
and refine respective curatorial enterprises. The most fruitful response,
in my opinion, is to welcome such opportunities for dialogue, and I
agree that some form of community round table (more inclusive than a
panel, maybe?) would be an encouraging step forward (prior to any "referendum").
Feb 2. 1 Like: Clint Enns.
Eli Horwatt
Yep Dan. It's currently in the works. A panel will be convened in the
next season, possibly prior to our open screening. The format is being
determined, but it will consist of public feedback around the issues
of the quota and curatorial freedom in the NTW show. More to come!
Feb 2. 2 Likes: Dan Browne, Kevin Hegge.
Jean-Paul Kelly
What a waste of your time and mine. What a waste of Pleasure Dome's
vital repositories of symbolic and real capital when such supplies are
always so tenuous. Such an immature conversation - especially in its
considerations of form, process, structure, and content. Stop betraying
your work. Stop being irresponsible and disrespectful to your profession
– and those who support it with their engagement – through
your lack of dynamism. Start acting like professionals. This is regressive.
Get back to the studio or to the viewing room and make some good work.
Move on.
Feb 2. 5 Likes: Kevin Hegge, George Hawken, Higgs Boatswain, Nick Fox-Gieg,
Ship Shape.
Clint Enns
what a waste of council's funding for supporting an organization that
does not meet their mandate.
Feb 2.
Jean-Paul Kelly
Then defund it.
Feb 2.
Jean-Paul Kelly
Put the money to better use.
Feb 2.
Jean-Paul Kelly
I'll just end with this, a response to Clint just asking me if I was
serious: I'm serious about a large-scale swath of defunding that can
lead to redistribution of support to innovative, marginalized ARCs that
have gotten little while tiresome decades old centres continue to limp
along. My hope has always been that PD doesn't fit that bill, but maybe
a change is required. It is still the most progressive of all of our
Media Arts orgs, so I'll defend it till I'm blue in the face.
Feb 2. 5 Likes: Dan Browne, Kevin Hegge, Clint Enns, Higgs Boatswain,
John Porter.
Jean-Paul Kelly
There. Done. How did I get sucked into this entropy? Yikes. I'm out.
Feb 2. 3 Likes: Kevin Hegge, Christian Muñoz Morrison, Higgs
Boatswain.
Dan Browne
Those of us advocating dialogue here are proponents of reform over a
"scorched earth" policy, though I agree that more groups showing
work is beneficial (and is something I have strived to do with Loop
Collective). However, there are significant reasons for not wanting
to throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater -- ie. travelling
to the States in the past week has made it clear to me that Toronto
has an excellent reputation for experimental cinema largely due to the
long-standing nature of orgs like LIFT and Pleasure Dome. (Unfortunately
the new generation of film artists cannot remember the Funnel -- I can
only go off stories.) As someone who has been arguing against a "bean
counting" mentality when it comes to formats, I nonetheless support
dialogue on the topic. A lot of positive things could come out of it...
ie: if PD decides to give guest curators the ability to just programme
video works, it could result in the creation of a new programme of strictly
film works, a "salon des refuses" so to speak. Or a change
of mandate that would resolve the accusations of PD being disingenuous.
Or even just a chance to talk shop with fellow artists at an interesting
juncture in the history of development of the cinema! Don't come if
you don't like to talk - nobody ought to be forced into conversation
here.
Feb 2. 4 Likes: Sara MacLean, Clint Enns, Christian Muñoz Morrison,
John Porter.
John Porter
John Creson, can you elaborate on your posting here of PD's New Toronto
Works 2013 Call for Submissions? Are you suggesting there's a disconnect
between Cressida's comment that she "asked for digital submissions
only this year", while PD's Call said that it’s annual screening
"showcases the city’s freshest film and video work"?
Feb 2.
John Creson
Yep.
Feb 2.
Kevin Hegge
Free Cressida!
Feb 2. 1 Likes: Jonah Falco.
Dan Browne
Let's keep the martyr complexes out of this, on both sides.
Feb 2. 1 Like: Cam Woykin.
Higgs Boatswain
Are you kidding? You guys are like the film Taliban. YOU HAVE INSULTED
THE PROFILMET, INFILMIDEL! WE'RE GOING TO BLOW UP YOUR FARCEBOOK COMMENTS
SECTION. Okay, I'm definitely off now. Toot!
Feb 3. 2 Likes: Kevin Hegge, Jonah Falco.
John Porter
Glad to have you back Higgs Boatswain (even if just temporarily)! If
you keep coming back, we must be doing something right. The more opposing
opinions, the better. That's art at it's best. We'll try to keep it
up, hoping you'll return again.
Feb 3.
Erik Martinson
Hi everyone, I think it is important to re-iterate that the key issue
is discussing the mandate of Pleasure Dome with regard to the issue
of formats, for which a public forum is being planned. The curators
for NTW have always, as far as I am aware, been given complete curatorial
agency to build a program drawn from open call submissions and submissions
from local distributors. I feel that the most pressing issue is at an
organizational level, in the discussion of the mandate, at an IRL public
forum. Out of respect for all involved in last year's NTW, artists and
curators, let's re-focus this discussion at the public forum back to
the mandate. Looking forward to a fruitful discussion there, details
to be announced as soon as we have them. All will be welcome to attend.
Thanks.
Feb 3. 10 Likes: Andrew James Paterson, Clint Enns, Eli Horwatt, Dan
Browne, Jim Riley, Kevin Hegge, Jonah Falco, Higgs Boatswain, RayRay
McRabies, Jean-Paul Kelly.
Higgs Boatswain
Thank you Erik. Now, in the mean time you all might be interested in
this show:
fading films/fading frames : a transition » upominki
http://www.upominki.nl/fading-filmsfading-frames-a-transition/
Feb 3. 2 Likes: Zoë Heyn-Jones, Clint Enns.
John Porter
Welcome Erik Martinson! Good to have the President of PD's board finally
participating! Now we can "get down to nuts & bolts".
Can you please answer the Qs Clint asked PD on Jan 7 about its mandate?
"It is worth asking, in a given season, does PD meet their mandate?
That is, is 50% of the work shown projected on film? Could PD clarify
if this mandate is still enforced? Could PD clarify their position on
whether work shot on film and finished on video counts as "film
proper" or "video proper"? If neither, how is PD planning
on rectifying this inconsistency?"
Feb 3.
John Porter
Jean-Paul Kelly, full disclosure please.
Feb 3.
Clint Enns
John, IRL means in real life and I am positive these questions will
be addressed.
Erik, this sounds reasonable to me.
Feb 3. 1 Like: Dan Browne.
John Porter
Thanks Clint, I meant to ask what IRL meant. I'd still like Erik to
answer your Qs here, so we all can be better prepared at the IRL public
forum. The more that can come out here, in advance, the more productive
that forum will be.
Feb 3. 1 Like: Clint Enns.
John Porter
At the NTW screening Cressida announced that anyone disappointed in
the absence of scratchy super 8 could speak to her afterward. When I
emailed my disappointment to her, she asked me to not email her at her
private account, but I had used the contact account posted on her blog
http://cressidakocienski.com/ which is very public (it's the 21st Century).
She asked me to email her through the PD account, which I did more than
once but I never received a reply from either her or anyone else at
PD. She and Francisco also told me they didn't want to discuss my concerns.
Only then did I post my concerns here on Facebook, starting this thread.
Now, 3 months later, she says they are not unavailable or unaccountable,
but she keeps saying she's leaving this discussion.
Feb 3. 1 Like: Marion Lewis.
Jean-Paul Kelly
John Porter I gave a talk to the MANO conference in November with, what
some might think was too much, disclosure. I won't repeat the substance
of that paper in this forum (not that I have anything to curtail from
its core message) – but I've already put my thoughts out in the
open with candour. I'm sure we can talk about it IRL in a more productive
dialogue. Makes more sense to me that way - that way I don't have to
police my tone or sarcasm like one must in text-based form and you all
get to see my eyes roll and veins pop.
Feb 3. 2 Likes: RayRay McRabies, David Frankovich.
John Porter
Jean-Paul Kelly Sorry, but we couldn't all be at MANO in Ottawa in November.
I'm just interested in your disclosure related to this discussion. Did
you talk specifically about PD's mandate and NTW show at MANO?
Feb 3.
Jean-Paul Kelly
No, John John Porter I did not speak to this specific concern.
Feb 3. 1 Like: Kevin Hegge.
John Porter
So Jean-Paul, why did you refer to your MANO talk here? Let's stay on
topic. Again, full disclosure please.
Feb 3.
John Porter
There's a common misconception here, even among PD board members, that
PD's mandate requires their New Toronto Works to show a quota of film.
Maybe people didn't read my Jan 5 post of the actual mandate. Any PD
screenings are free to exclude film as long as the board works as a
team to ensure that each season as a whole includes at least 50% film.
Does the board work as a team?
Feb 17.
John Porter
Pleasure Dome's board consists of 10-12 curators who each serve at least
one 2-year term, programming about 20 screenings each year, so there
is ample opportunity for any of them to explore and demonstrate their
position. There's no need to use PD's New Toronto Works Show for that
purpose. Last year's NTW curators unnecessarily used that screening
to forward their position which excluded film, and their curatorial
statement didn't even mention Toronto, let alone explain the relationship
between their position and new Toronto media art, or why film was excluded.
Feb 14. 2 Likes: Gail Mentlik, Clint Enns.
Clint Enns
Justin Bieber chimes in on the debate at 1:05!
Justin Bieber Deposition (Full Video)
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/83935905/
Mar 11. 6 Likes: Tara Snit, B Jammin LandRack, Leslie Supnet, Dan Browne,
Scott Birdwise, Nick Fox-Gieg.
Scott Birdwise
Justin Bieber is a Bazinian...? Haha.
Mar 11. 2 Likes: Leslie Supnet, Clint Enns.
Clint Enns
YYessshhh.
Mar 12. 1 Like: Leslie Supnet.
Nick Fox-Gieg
That's glorious. I think Bieber, media theorist, has the final word.
Mar 12. 1 Like: David Frankovich.
John Porter
Some people here have suggested that Pdome's planned "in-real-life"
forum will be a better platform for this discussion than Facebook, but
I disagree. Each has its pros and cons. The IRL forum will reach only
a small fraction of the people watching this thread and, depending on
when and where it is, may not include some of the major players. Some
say that the IRL forum can't succeed, but again I disagree. I'm really
looking forward to some quality face time, so I hope I can attend.
Mar 12. 1 Like: Dan Browne.
John Porter
Pleasure Dome's "New Toronto Works 2014" Call for Submissions
has been on their website, Winter Season paper program and specific
Call postcard since January, and just recently in a Facebook Event.
All say "To submit please send a weblink of the work...".
They do not allow for submissions on film, which is what Cressida said
here that she did last year - "I asked for digital submissions
only...". So it appears that Pdome is continuing last year's policy
in spite of this thread.
CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS: NEW TORONTO WORKS 2014
https://m.facebook.com/events/124995134367096
Sunday, June 1. Pleasure Dome. 147 people went.
Apr 23.
Eli Horwatt
Film submissions are welcomed. Its absence on the flyer was a serious
oversight. I'll send an address within the next day. I know the collective
would definitely like to get film submissions.
Apr 23. 2 Likes: Clint Enns, John Porter.
John Porter
Thanks Eli. Good to hear! That used to be in the annual Calls, not sure
how long ago. Can the website and Facebook Event be corrected soon?
Apr 23. 1 Likes: Clint Enns.
Eli Horwatt
It is now updated. Here are the details below: For film or un-digitized
analog video, please submit to:
C/o Pleasure Dome, 2466 Dundas St W. Box 502, Toronto, M6P 1W9
Submissions must be post-marked by June 1st. For returns,
please include self-addressed envelope, or indicate other means of return.
Apr 24. 1 Like: John Porter.
John Porter
How about an easier and cheaper downtown drop-off location also, like
Vtape which Pdome also uses for other transactions? That was allowed
some other years.
Apr 24.
John Porter
It's updated on Pdome's website but not on its Facebook Event page.
Apr 24.
Eli Horwatt
Not a bad idea. Let me check it out.
Apr 24. 1 Like: John Porter.
Eli Horwatt
Alright, vtape drop off is acceptable. Preferably leave it with Erik.
Apr 24. 1 Like: John Porter.
John Porter
Thanks Eli. Will the Vtape drop-off option be added to Pdome's website?
Apr 24.
Eli Horwatt
It's on the event site now.
Apr 24. 1 Like: John Porter.
Eli Horwatt
will be on website shortly
Apr 24. 1 Like: John Porter.
John Porter
What film formats are Pdome willing and able to project properly in
their New Toronto Works 2014 selection previews and public screening
- 8mm, super 8, 9.5mm, 16mm, 35mm, 70mm, etc?
Apr 27.
John Porter
How about a deadline extension for non-digital submissions?
Apr 27.
Pleasure Dome's "New Toronto Works 2014" Call
for Submissions:
"To submit please send a weblink of the work...".
They do not allow for submissions on film. Pdome is continuing last
year's policy.
Eli Horwatt, Apr 23, 2014:
Film submissions are welcomed.
Its absence on the flyer was a serious oversight.
I'll send an address within the next day.
I know the collective would definitely like to get film submissions.
John Porter
Pleasure Dome's Summer Season schedule is on their website now, including
their "Public Conversation on Diverse Media Exhibition", Saturday,
July 5, 5pm at CineCycle, followed by a BBQ then their annual Open Screening.
I'm teaching my Super 8 Workshop at LIFT that afternoon. They used my
photo without my credit or permission:
A Public Conversation on Diverse Media Exhibition & Open Screening
| Pleasure Dome
http://pdome.org/2014/a-public-conversation-on-diverse-media-exhibition-open-screening/
May 3. 1 Like: Clint Enns.
John Porter
They've added my photo credit now. Thankyou. I would've liked to have
been asked too, but nevertheless I'm glad they used it - it's a fantastic
photo that I'm very proud of, taken in the parking lot behind CineCycle
(with its rear door open), where this BBQ will be. They used it on the
back cover of their 10th anniversary book - "LUX".
May 4. 1 Like: Clint Enns.
John Porter
At their Public Conversation I'm most looking forward to their "history
of Pleasure Dome’s mission statement and chart its trajectory
through past programming", history buff that I am.
May 4.
Clint Enns
I wonder who will be presenting that history(ies).
May 4. 1 Like: John Porter.
John Porter
Good Q. And the Moderator. With so little time it should be somebody
strict, with a gavel.
May 4.
John Porter
Btw, congrats to Clint! This public discussion was his idea, in an early
comment to this thread which has consequently discussed his idea.
May 4.
Clint Enns
Although I am glad it is happening, I am not organizing it. PD should
be congratulated for moving on this...panels are often a good way to
alleviate tensions.
I hope to see other people from this discussion thread
in person.
May 5. 1 Like: John Porter.
John Porter
Yes, congrats and many thanks to Pleasure Dome!
May 5.
John Porter
Using Pleasure Dome's own formula, their upcoming season is 100% video
- their worst season ever for inclusion of film. But this time, thanks
to this thread, they can't claim ignorance - that they didn't know about
their mandate which requires at least 50% film in each and every season.
It appears that they've already made up their mind and their Public
Conversation on July 5 is just for show. Thanks for the show.
May 6. 1 Like: Nick Fox-Gieg.
Nick Fox-Gieg
Instead of a public conversation I want to do a staged reading of this
thread.
May 6. 3 Likes: Tara Snit, David Frankovich, Anthony Easton.
John Porter
Perfect Nick! I'm thinking of performing too. To make it more of a show.
May 6.
John Porter
Nick, would it sound like those hilarious David Letterman routines with
his stage hands reading transcripts from the Oprah Winfrey talk show?
May 6.
Pleasure Dome created the event
A
Public Conversation on Diverse Media Exhibition & Open Screening.
Jun 11. 1 Like: John Porter.
John Porter
I've posted this entire thread, with 200+ comments, to my related webpage,
including a list of all 23 commentors and 28 "likers":
Facebook
Thread on Pleasure Dome's Group Page
This is in anticipation of Pdome shutting down this group page, but
I'm not sure what will happen. Will it disappear entirely, or just be
non-functioning, or just not used by Pdome? I'll keep adding any more
comments here to my webpage until I no longer can.
June 19.
Melanie Wilmink
Hi everyone. John, thanks again for doing all that work to archive this.
It is important to the conversation and it's incredibly time-consuming
to archive anything on Facebook, since it's really not designed to do
so. I would also just like to bring to attention the event invite for
the upcoming public conversation around media-specific quotas, happening
on Saturday July 5. I hope everyone who has participated and/ or observed
in this online forum will come out to join at the in-person venue. We
hope that it can be a really productive event for the community to provide
their input and we're making it extra fun by tying it into a BBQ/ mingler
afterwards, and then the annual Open Screening later (don't forget to
bring some work with you to screen!). Please note that even if you can't
make it, we are interested in your input, and we encourage you to send
a short (1-2 paragraphs, 1 page max) statement that we will try read
at the event if we have time, or send a more detailed comment via email
to pdome@bell.net. And in case you haven't done so already, please make
sure you "Like" our "Page", which is much more active.
A Public Conversation on Diverse Media Exhibition & Open Screening
Saturday, July 5 at 5:00pm - 11:00pm
https://www.facebook.com/events/658208227581747/
Jun 20
Melanie Wilmink
Here is the link to the Page. Thanks all!
Pleasure Dome
https://www.facebook.com/pdomeTO
Jun 20. 2 Likes: Clint Enns, Eli Horwatt.
Eli Horwatt
@ John Porter The current season isn't all video - but part of the ratio
has to do with the issues around film that we have to get to the bottom
of in our discussion. For example, we intended to show Nancy Holt's
Sun Tunnels on film but were told by FMC that the print is seriously
compromised and that video was the better option. And I will reiterate
to you that their is nothing in the mandate proper about 50% film. It
is in the preamble to the mandate. Obviously no one is claiming "ignorance."
That's why this conversation is happening.
Jun 25. 1 Like: Clint Enns
John Porter
Eli, I know that there are some films this season, and I didn't say
that there aren't. I said "Using Pleasure Dome's own formula",
this season is 100% video. Pdome doesn't use the formula required in
its Constitution, calculating ratios of screen time and financial resources.
Instead it just compares the number of films and videos in a program.
If more than half are videos then the program is considered an all-video
program, and ditto with films. Using this formula (the one Pdome uses),
this season is all video.
And the preamble we are discussing is in the Constitution,
which I don't think uses the word "mandate" anywhere. We have
just been using the word "mandate" throughout this thread
to refer to Pdome's intentions, goals, etc. as described in its Constitution.
I think preambles are as authoritative a part of the Constitution as
the body is, and the entire Constitution is, in effect, the corporation's
self-imposed mandate. It's what the corporation wants for itself, and
how it sees itself.
Jun 25. 1 Like: Clint Enns.
Quinn T. Hornett
turn this thread into a film or video already
June 26. 2 Likes: Eli Horwatt, John Porter.
Scott MacKenzie
Not to be all constitutional-geeky on this, but the preamble to a constitution
(like that of a manifesto, but far more blinding because of the official
nature on it as a text) is an interpretive clause, meaning that the
delineated rules that follow must be interpreted with the preamble in
mind, following its intent. Otherwise, a preamble is meaningless. Interesting
thread, by the way.
June 26. 3 Likes: Melanie Wilmink, Clint Enns, John Porter.
John Porter
Quinn, Nick Fox-Gieg suggested a live reading of this thread. Maybe
you two can work together on something. You can begin by shooting a
video of the Public Conversation on July 5.
June 26. 1 Like: Clint Enns.
John Porter
Thanks Scott! I think you meant a Constitution is far more BINDING than
a manifesto, but "blinding" works too, considering Pdome's
boards being blind to its Constitution. Ha!
34 minutes ago
Clint Enns
Quinn, the public discussion is before an open screening...feel free
to make something. Eddo Stern's Best Flamewar Ever might be an inspiration:
Best Flamewar Ever (HD) (Eddo Stern 2007)
http://vimeo.com/15627724
John Porter, I would love to see one of your condensed fashion shows at the open screening.
Thanks Scott. Are you coming out to the discussion/screening?
June 26. 2 Likes: John Porter, Tara Snit.
John Porter
Clint, you're not clear, but I think you're suggesting that Quinn make
something about this thread in time to show it at the consequent Open
Screening. Great idea! For anybody!
Jun 26. 1 Like: Clint Enns.
Eli Horwatt
@Scott MacKenzie lets bring the geekiness! As I understand it, a preamble
speaks to the underlying philosophy of an organization. A mandate constitutes
a firm set of rules that they must abide by. Pleasure Dome may be straying
from the philosophical premises of its 1993 preamble, but John’s
frequent reiteration of programming ratios has never been a rule. It
was a priority that the collective has strayed from, and are now putting
to public discussion. Does that distinction make sense?
June 26. 3 Likes: Scott MacKenzie, Clint Enns, Zoë Heyn-Jones.
Clint Enns
"While preambles may be regarded as unimportant introductory matter,
their words may have effects that may not have been foreseen by their
drafters.
In Canada, the preamble to the Constitution Act, 1867
was cited by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Provincial Judges Reference,
to increase guarantees to judicial independence."
Jun 26. 2 Likes: John Porter, Eli Horwatt.
Clint Enns
Why is it even in the Constitution at all if no-one is accountable to
it?
Conscious deviation from the underlying philosophy of
an organization seems, at least to me, to warrant both this type of
community outcry and discussion.
June 26. 1 Like: John Porter.
Eli Horwatt
that's why we're having one...
Jun 26. 2 Likes: Clint Enns, Melanie Wilmink.
John Porter
Clint, that Eddo Stern video is a perfect inspiration! We can use both
Quinn's and Nick's ideas by very simply shooting a video of people (anybody!)
reading the transcript of this thread. Just as I said earlier, it would
be like those hilarious David Letterman routines of his stage hands
reading transcripts from Oprah Winfrey's talk show!
Jun 26. 1 Like: Clint Enns.
John Porter
It looks like Pleasure Dome isn't inviting many people on Facebook to
their Public Conversation this Saturday. They have 1,039 group members,
but only 33 people had been invited by last Friday, so some of us have
picked up the slack and invited another 932 since Friday.
July 2.
Melanie Wilmink
John Porter, that is due to Facebook's invite limitations. I can only
invite my personal friends, and we can't send general invites to all
members of the group. Please feel free to spread the word.
July 2.
John Porter
Can you invite your members separately?
July 2.
Melanie Wilmink
I dont think so, it gets publicized through the page and people can
choose to join the event.
July 2.
John Porter
I've encouraged and helped Pdome to post a complete list of their past
board members on their website before their Public Conversation this
Saturday because I think it may be useful in the Conversation: About
Us | Pleasure Dome
I hope that they've also extended special invitations to all past board
members to attend so that they can relate their personal experiences
dealing with Pdome's film-video ratio policy. I especially hope that
all past board members who have actively participated in this Facebook
thread will try very hard to attend:
John Porter (1992-1994)
Jubal Brown (1999-2001)
Scott Miller Berry (2004-2007)
Jean-Paul Kelly (2005-2009)
Erik Martinson (2005-2014)
Nick Fox-Gieg (2008-2010)
David Frankovich (2008-2013)
Kevin Hegge (2009-2014)
Eli Horwatt (2010-2014)
Cressida Kocienski (2012-2014)
Melanie Wilmink (2013/2014)
This is the type of "full disclosure" I asked
from Jean-Paul Kelly after he criticized this entire thread, but he
failed to disclose so I'm "outing" him here . I think it would've
been helpful for all of us on the above list to disclose our board terms
when we first commented on this thread.
July 3.
Pleasure Dome
Thanks to everyone who came out to our Conversation and Open Screening
last night! The discussion was super productive, and we are excited
to see how we can move forward from here. The Open Screening was also
amazing, and full of fantastic work. Props to everyone who brought something
to share at the screening.
Jul 6 · 2 Comments · 13 likes: Mike Zryd, Peter Rahul,
Janet Jones, Leslie Supnet,
Benjamin Edelberg, Andrea Cooper, The life of Daniel, Jan Watson, John
Porter,
Rebecca Gruihn, M Van Allen, Pleasure Dome, Internet Explorer.
M Van Allen
Sorry I missed it ... Maybe a round 2 or 3?
Jul 6 · 2 likes: John Porter, Pleasure Dome.
John Porter
I attended, but also hope for round 2 or 3. It was too short and left
many unanswered questions, like, "Why did Pleasure Dome wait 20
years to have this conversation?", "Why did it choose instead
to just ignore its own Constitution for 20 years?", and "Can
it ever be trusted again to honour its own Constitution, however they
change it?"
I was most impressed by the turnout - 30, including people
from the staff or boards of other Toronto artist-run media organizations.
I'd like to see other orgs hold similar events. There's no public
peer review in the arts community, which is shocking and counter-productive.
Jul 6
return to PAGE 1
continue to PAGE 3
CineZine - Opinions - Histories - Reviews
