Avant-Garde, Experimental & Non-narrative Films

[ptmd]

As I said, I don't want this discussion about piracy to derail the whole thread, but it's worth pointing out that 16mm prints of all of Michael Snow's major films are readily available for rental at very reasonable cost from at least a half-dozen sources in the US, Europe, and Japan. They screen every few months in New York (at Anthology and elsewhere) and regularly at many cinematheques, college campuses, and museums around the world and that will continue to happen as long as the rental/screening revenue is sufficient to keep the coops and noncommercial venues in business. Watching inferior copies of films on Ubuweb does nothing to support either the filmmakers or the exhibition/distribution networks that make their work possible. These films are not locked away in a vault somewhere, the "more visibility through whatever means necessary" argument is completely disingenuous, and a desire to have films that are fundamentally tied to (or about) the conditions of celluloid film projection watched in that format can't simply be dismissed as a Luddite fear of technology.

[Gregory]

Supposedly, anyone who does not want work to which they own the rights to be available on UbuWeb can contact them to have it removed. However, I can certainly sympathize with ptmd's argument. Many people have an extremely strong feeling of entitlement not only to access to films and music, or some unreasonable facsimile thereof, but of cheap or free access to these. Part of UbuWeb's philosophy is their assertion (see this page) of a right to decide what counts as "absurdly overpriced."
And I agree that this "Luddite" thing is completely specious, but so are most accusations using that term, in my view.

[Adam]

There's plenty more Warhol available from the Rialto label in Italy.

There is much dispute over the legitimacy of the Italian Warhol sets; still, an absolute must own.

There's no dispute. Those are all unquestionably bootlegs. Aask anyone who works at the Foundation, which indisputably owns the rights to the films.
But since the Foundation isn't putting out the films, then the existence of the bootlegs is understandable.

Snow's short version of Wavelength is called "Wavelength for Those Who Don't Have the Time." He gave me a copy of the DVD. And to make it he basically superimposed the film in three layers, although it's not just straight thirds (as far as I can tell). It was created in a video editing system, output to video, and he has no problem with it being screened publicly from video, unlike the full length version.

For stereo, the response from filmmakers is that even if you've watched it on Ubuweb, you still haven't seen the film "at all." Because a bad video version is not the film as they have made it, film that is dealing specifically with unique qualities of celluloid. And they would rather have you not see it then have you see something which you think is it but isn't actually. It's an endlessly debatable point. I think a parallel argument would be a painter saying that his/her painting may never have a reproduction in a book, and I don't know of any examples of that. But people comprehend that when they see a photo of a painting in the book, then there is still out there the "real" painting which has qualities that they are missing in 2-D reproduction. I don't think many viewers of film art, after seeing it on video, have the same notion (that there is a more authentic & richer viewing experience to be had by seeing the film itself.)

Now I'm lucky enough to live in Los Angeles and I actually program on of the main experiemntal film screening venues, so I can arrange to see great experimental films that aren't on video. Obviously people in small non-university towns aren't so fortunate. Should they be deprived of the possibility of seeing such films? And yes, i know that one can argue that they can always rent the films, but realistically, not many small towns (nor cities, really) have decent 16mm projection facilities anymore. And too many universities feel that students who need to see films can just watch them on DVD. [Heck, one of George Lucas's conditions for his big donation for the new building at USC was that no film projection be included in the building. They talked him into allowing one. And David James brings in a 16mm projector to screen 16mm prints for his avant-garde class. But think of that just as a symptom. Lucas says he's an "experimental filmmaker" at heart, but even he doesn't make it easy for such films to be screened.]

[Nothing]

Many, most actually, of the people mentioned above do not want the films that were made on film to exist on DVD for very legitimate reasons ranging from the quality of projected light vs. video light to color distortion

If Antonioni and Kubrick can live with digital copies of their work then so can Snow and Benning. Rather, this is about maintaining the pretense that avant-garde cinema is somehow superior to arthouse or commercial cinema; a pretense necessitated by the lack of an audience - an audience that would ironically be more forthcoming if said directors got over themselves and agreed to DVD or Blu-Ray editions of their work.

film that is dealing specifically with unique qualities of celluloid.

A prime example of the pretention I'm talking about. As if all forms of celluloid cinematography are not dealing specifically with the unique qualities of celluloid.

and concerns over print rentals.

This will be dead in five years. What then?

The sole authorized distributor of Warhol films is the Museum of Modern Art and the Warhol Foundation does not want the films transferred to DVD (the Raro discs are technically illegal and many are transferred at the wrong speed).

Why are the discs still on sale then?

But really, these complaints about Brakhage 2 seem rather silly to me; not only because he remains such a towering figure, but also because his body of work is enormous. Even after both sets are out, less than 15% of his films will be on DVD and there are literally dozens of very important titles that there simply isn't room for.

One got the idea from the first set, quite frankly...

Btw, I've projected my Brakhage DVDs and seen Brakhage projected and there isn't a huge difference, quite frankly. Both are 2D projections, so the "photographs in a book" analogy doesn't stand up. Of course, there is a difference in resolution, latitude and colour space, a gap which a Blu-Ray would help to close further. But the high-end 35mm cinematography of a Kubrick or Antonioni actually benefits far more from watching a real print.

[stereo]

I do understand the filmmakers' arguments of propriety and appreciate your response Adam, which is a bit more nuanced and less preachy. I think if a postcard of the Mona Lisa is the best you'll ever get (we can't all get to the Louvre), then it is a better to have an 'approximation of intent' (after all, authenticity/auteur intention is never a 1:1 aspect ratio). At least you know what the damn thing resembles. Further, the postcard may be the thing that gets you to fly to Paris to see the painting in person. That is to say, understanding it (e.g. Ubuweb) does not look ideal, but it is still a far better thing than words in a textbook, slippery recounted memories from friends, or stills. We don't all live in NY or LA. There are many, many places without cinematic culture that do not have the facilities or interest in sponsoring rentals and screenings. I do feel for the artist, but visibility is an important issue. My response to the filmmakers is that I feel I 'have' seen the film in some family resemblance (vs. not 'at all'); surely not in the intended manner, but that is understood. I don't intend to go through the rest of my life frustrated because I don't live in NY or LA, can't see the film, and refuse to type Ubuweb into my address bar. That's just silly. If I follow that argument then I would/will see very few films throughout my life beyond Blockbuster new releases, and if avant-garde artists aim to promote ignorant lives then I fundamentally disagree. If they presume I am rich or metropolitan, then I fundamentally protest.

[MichaelB]

For stereo, the response from filmmakers is that even if you've watched it on Ubuweb, you still haven't seen the film "at all." Because a bad video version is not the film as they have made it, film that is dealing specifically with unique qualities of celluloid. And they would rather have you not see it then have you see something which you think is it but isn't actually. It's an endlessly debatable point. I think a parallel argument would be a painter saying that his/her painting may never have a reproduction in a book, and I don't know of any examples of that.

There are quite a few examples of musicians who refused to be recorded - the conductor Sergiu Celibidache pointedly never set foot in a studio, for instance. Though in his case it proved impossible to ban radio broadcasts of his concerts (a precondition of their funding in many cases), so recordings of his live performances are readily available.

If Antonioni and Kubrick can live with digital copies of their work then so can Snow and Benning. Rather, this is about maintaining the pretense that avant-garde cinema is somehow superior to arthouse or commercial cinema; a pretense necessitated by the lack of an audience - an audience that would ironically be more forthcoming if said directors got over themselves and agreed to DVD or Blu-Ray editions of their work.

Yes, but you can't just steam in and order them to co-operate, can you? It's a very delicate negotiating process that requires the utmost tact and patience, and willingness to compromise.

Mind you, this cuts both ways - the Quay Brothers initially refused point blank to allow any of their pre-1984 films to be reissued, but I was able to talk them into allowing Nocturna Artificialia, their oldest surviving film, to be tucked away on the extras disc. Mind you, in that case I had a major negotiating advantage because it was BFI-funded and owned, so they couldn't ultimately have stopped me - but I had to handle this as sensitively as anything else because they'd have been well within their right to withdraw cooperation elsewhere if they'd really strongly objected.

As if all forms of celluloid cinematography are not dealing specifically with the unique qualities of celluloid.

But I trust you'd agree that this is possibly less important in the case of Carry On Up The Khyber than it would be with a Michael Snow film?

[Film rental] will be dead in five years. What then?

You go back to the filmmakers and try to open a fresh dialogue. And you'll probably find that some will continue to maintain a celluloid-or-nothing stance, but others might be amenable to persuasion. As has already been illustrated with the examples of Brakhage and Jerzy Kucia, minds do change, but there's no way of knowing upfront when you're going to strike lucky.

[Nothing]

Yes, but you can't just steam in and order them to co-operate, can you? It's a very delicate negotiating process that requires the utmost tact and patience, and willingness to compromise.

Sure. But have Criterion actually approached Benning, for example, rather than just assuming he wouldn't be interested? That he is switching to HD for production purposes indicates a willingness to adapt.

But I trust you'd agree that this is possibly less important in the case of Carry On Up The Khyber than it would be with a Michael Snow film?

I don't know, I guess you'd have to hold a seance with Ernest Steward, BSc.

[MichaelB]

Sure. But have Criterion actually approached Benning, for example, rather than just assuming he wouldn't be interested? That he is switching to HD for production purposes indicates a willingness to adapt.

I have absolutely no idea - for obvious reasons, distributors tend not to reveal who they've been talking to until they've got signatures on the dotted line. And I imagine Criterion doesn't have a full-time employee dealing specifically with independent artists' film and video - unlike the BFI, for instance, which is one of the reasons the latter has a much stronger avant-garde catalogue (albeit mostly based around UK or UK-based artists).

I don't know, I guess you'd have to hold a seance with Ernest Steward, BSc.

Or simply apply common sense - if Steward was minded to be precious about his cinematography, why did he accept a low-budget job that involved turning rural Wales into a none too convincing representation of India? Let's face it, we're not exactly talking Black Narcissus here!

(I have seen it on the big screen, btw).

[Nothing]

How about the BFI give it a go in the meantime then? Along with MoC, you've been showing up Criterion of late anyhow. RR as an individual release and an El Valley Centro Trilogy boxset. Time for another coup...

[foggy eyes]

If Antonioni and Kubrick can live with digital copies of their work then so can Snow and Benning.

Snow doesn't want his film works to be distributed on DVD because they would cease to have anything to do with the material properties of film. WVLNT is available on DVD because it's a digital work. We're just going to live with it until he changes his mind, I'm afraid (which, to be honest, I hope he doesn't - the same goes for Dorsky & Benning)...

Anyway, I'm just repeating what ptmd has said (very lucidly) over and over again here...

[MichaelB]

How about the BFI give it a go in the meantime then? Along with MoC, you've been showing up Criterion of late anyhow. RR as an individual release and an El Valley Centro Trilogy boxset. Time for another coup...

The BFI did actually collaborate quite extensively with Snow very recently. I have no idea whether the question of DVD distribution of his work came up, though.

[Nothing]

No, the arguments are not lucid in any way shape or form. Of course an actual film projection is the best way to view any work of celluloid. Do you think the new DVD of Zabriskie Point in any way compares to the 35mm Italian restoration print? Would a Blu-Ray compare? What about the Blu-Ray of Playtime next to the 70mm version (indeed, I recall even the 35mm print being very disappointing in comparison)? However, it would be counter-productive - and, frankly, elitist - to claim that celluloid is the only way these works should be seen - that if you haven't seen the print then you "haven't seen the film at all."

The only difference with Snow is that:
a/ He retains ownership over his own work; and
b/ He has disappeared very very far up his own arse, by the sounds of it.

[planetjake]

Why can't a filmmaker set his or her own standards? By what right do you assume that Kubrick and Antonioni are the sole authority on how films should be viewed and presented? By all evidence that I've ever read, heard and witnessed, Brakhage, Benning and Snow were every bit as particular about technical specifications as either Kubrick or Antonioni.
Also, If you haven't noticed a huge difference then you are either lying or you had inferior prints. I have attended literally HUNDREDS of Brakhage screenings with dozens of friends and not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM was ever less than amazed at the difference between the DVD and the film prints. I'm amazed no-one has called you out on this. In fact, more than a few friends who didn't respond to Brakhage at all on DVD were moved to tears by moments in Scenes From Under Childhood and Anticipation of the Night. Also, how do the films Kubrick and Antonioni, two filmmakers who have rudimentary approaches to rhythm, movement and light benefit more from projection? Because it cost more? Now who's being elitist? Kubrick didn't seem to have ANY sense of film texture whatsoever... Yet Brakhage... Someone who used to spray chemicals on his films to accentuate texture benefits less from seeing his work with actual texture in it? You can't run away from the FACT that our brains process images on film much differently then they do on any video format.

[Jeff]

No, the arguments are not lucid in any way shape or form.

The fact that you disagree with Snow's assertions regarding the presentation of his own work, or ptmd's explanations of same, does not render them obtuse.

[Nothing]

not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM was ever less than amazed at the difference between the DVD and the film prints.

That's probably because I was upscaling in a dark room on a relatively decent projector. But, of course, the prints are better. Prints are always better. This matters more with detailed, artfully lit 35mm (or 70mm) cinematography than with paint-splattered semi-amateur 16mm images that move too fast to properly process.

You can't run away from the FACT that our brains process images on film much differently then they do on any video format.

Oh I agree. Alpha and beta waves... I'm all for preserving the celluloid experience in theatres... But the question is how close to the 'original' experience does a home video presentation have to be before it becomes useful. For most filmmakers, that question has been answered (Brakhage included).

But-

Also, how do the films Kubrick and Antonioni, two filmmakers who have rudimentary approaches to rhythm, movement and light benefit more from projection?

Here we go - the age-old avant-gardist arrogance comes into play (and this is the root cause of the whole debate / problem). Try repeating that phrase within any other thread on this board and prepared to get laughed out of court.

This is more of the same:

The fact that you disagree with Snow's assertions regarding the presentation of his own work, or ptmd's explanations of same, does not render them obtuse.

The fact is, in the cinema, you're never directly watching "THE FILM" - you're watching the film running through a gate and being projected through a glass lens onto a screen. ie. you're already watching a copy of the "original". And, of course, the print running through the projector is merely a copy of the original negative (which, in the case of something like Brakhage's Mothlight has already been through an optical process and re-photographed).

Now imagine that the original 16mm negative is scanned at 4k resolution in the latest telecine suite. That scanned image is colour-corrected digitally and transferred back onto film, also at 4k resolution. A print is made and projected. I'd place a wager that, if this was done correctly, then not even Snow would notice the difference. If a digital projector was good enough, you might even be able to project the scans digitally and Snow would also be hard pressed to notice the difference (he might eventually fall asleep due to the imperceptible lack of black spaces, but a digital projector that overcomes even this problem is not outside the realms of possibility). It is not the case, then, of one pure 'original' experience, a celluloid experience, that cannot possibly be duplicated.

We come back then to the issue of what represents a reasonable-enough approximation of the work for the purposes of home viewing - with a later theatrical screening always open to those who wish to explore the work further. And, in this regard, what makes Snow so special? What is it that differentiates his work from the work of practically every other filmmaker in the world, including Brakhage? I'm sorry, but the case has not been made, ergo the point is not 'lucid'.

[planetjake]

not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM was ever less than amazed at the difference between the DVD and the film prints.

That's probably because I was upscaling in a dark room on a relatively decent projector. But, of course, the prints are better. Prints are always better. This matters more with detailed, artfully lit 35mm (or 70mm) cinematography than with paint-splattered semi-amateur 16mm images that move too fast to properly process.

You can't run away from the FACT that our brains process images on film much differently then they do on any video format.

Oh I agree. Alpha and beta waves... I'm all for preserving the celluloid experience in theatres... But the question is how close to the 'original' experience does a home video presentation have to be before it becomes useful. For most filmmakers, that question has been answered (Brakhage included).

But-

Also, how do the films Kubrick and Antonioni, two filmmakers who have rudimentary approaches to rhythm, movement and light benefit more from projection?

Here we go - the age-old avant-gardist arrogance comes into play (and this is the root cause of the whole debate / problem). Try repeating that phrase within any other thread on this board and prepared to get laughed out of court.

This is more of the same:

The fact that you disagree with Snow's assertions regarding the presentation of his own work, or ptmd's explanations of same, does not render them obtuse.

The fact is, in the cinema, you're never directly watching "THE FILM" - you're watching the film running through a gate and being projected through a glass lens onto a screen. ie. you're already watching a copy of the "original". And, of course, the print running through the projector is merely a copy of the original negative (which, in the case of something like Brakhage's Mothlight has already been through an optical process and re-photographed).

Now imagine that the original 16mm negative is scanned at 4k resolution in the latest telecine suite. That scanned image is colour-corrected digitally and transferred back onto film, also at 4k resolution. A print is made and projected. I'd place a wager that, if this was done correctly, then not even Snow would notice the difference. If a digital projector was good enough, you might even be able to project the scans digitally and Snow would also be hard pressed to notice the difference (he might eventually fall asleep due to the imperceptible lack of black spaces, but a digital projector that overcomes even this problem is not outside the realms of possibility). It is not the case, then, of one pure 'original' experience, a celluloid experience, that cannot possibly be duplicated.

We come back then to the issue of what represents a reasonable-enough approximation of the work for the purposes of home viewing - with a later theatrical screening always open to those who wish to explore the work further. And, in this regard, what makes Snow so special? What is it that differentiates his work from the work of practically every other filmmaker in the world, including Brakhage? I'm sorry, but the case has not been made, ergo the point is not 'lucid'.

1. Please qualify the term "useful" in terms of video. I've never heard a filmmakers state that video isn't useful for something. Once again, I'm partial to the artbook analogy. But that can be it's own experience (not good or bad, mind you but different). You seem intent on destroying the middle ground here. I'm not generally satisfied with "useful" myself. I'm guessing Benning and Snow also don't like their work to reduced only to a "useful" format. I think there is room on this planet for filmmakers who want their work seen only on film. Nor do I see anything in any of your posts that comes close to convincing me otherwise. So, how has this question been answered? Brakhage was never opposed to having his work on video. I even have some of his work on VHS. He never stated that video wasn't useful. But he insisted that the best way possible to see the film was projected... So, how has the question been answered? Why should these artists be content to be "useful" as opposed to mind-bogglingly beautiful?

2. Just because YOU FAIL at processing the images properly doesn't mean that they can't be processed properly. I haven't had any trouble. Nor have many great critics (http://www.fredcamper.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) Like all great artists who use film, his work benefits from repeat viewing. Your failure at processing his images is certainly not a valid basis to make the argument that certain artists are more deserving of having their work seen the way they prefer it to be seen. Furthermore, isn't it the speed of Brakhages films that predispose them to film projection? If I'm watching abstract expressionism at 24fps, I think it might look better passing through a shutter than it would on a TV screen. Yet somehow he's not as deserving? Because you failed as a viewer? Please clarify this for me.

3. How am I arrogant? Because I have an opinion? You know nothing about me other than I prefer the films of Brakhage to the films of Kubrick and Antonioni and all of the sudden you point and say "AH! See! He likes avant-garde films! He's arrogant!!!" Your dismissive and blatantly reductive descriptions of Brakhages work are what's arrogant (and self important). Did I even say that they were bad filmmakers? No. I stated observations about their work. How does that qualify me for being laughed out of a forum? Do you know anything else about my tastes in film? Do you know anything else about me? Or do you not need to know anything else about me before you get to slap some bizarre, shortsighted stereotype on me?

[Nothing]

No, not an opinion, a ludicrous, ignorant assertion that hardly merits a serious rejoinder. But... I guess, if you insist... Rhythm: Watch either of the duels in Barry Lyndon. Watch Sandro, Claudia and Anna's car ride at the beginning of L'Avventura. Movement: Watch the Blue Danube sequence in 2001. Watch the 2nd to last shot of The Passenger. Light: I'm sorry, but I have to ask - are you visually impaired? Do you have any concept of the art of photography? I guess that von Sternberg fellow was rudimentary too.

Perhaps I was needling you a little on Brakhage in rejoinder, but "paint-splattered" and "semi-amateur" are words that do apply to many, if not all, his films - without necessarily implying any kind of value judgement. By 'process', btw, I mean literally process the individual images, in real time. In Brakhage's painted films, each frame is essentially a new image and It isn't possible for the brain of Fred Camper or anyone else to fully process 24 images a second. I guess we've all "failed as viewers" then.... Fwiw, I do feel that Brakhage is an original and very much has his place within the canon. He is certainly 'useful', if we can ressurect that word... And, in any case, Brakhage is not the issue here. As you say, "Brakhage was never opposed to having his work on video... He never stated that video wasn't useful. But he insisted that the best way possible to see the film was projected... " Quite correct - a perfectly reasonable position.

You know, it's funny, this started out with my criticising Criterion for not broadening their avant-garde horizons and offering a platform to Snow and others. This then turns into a discussion of why Snow and others would not be interested in such a platform, nor should they be, according to some of those who live in major metropolitan cities and spend their lives hanging around avant-garde film retrospectives. To which I say... well that's fine then. If these filmmakers truly desire increasing obscurity and the wilting of the fruits of their labour into imminent nothingness then let their wish come true.

Still, I do think it's worth a call to James Benning at least...

[vogler]

By 'process', btw, I mean literally process the individual images, in real time. In Brakhage's painted films, each frame is essentially a new image and It isn't possible for the brain of Fred Camper or anyone else to fully process 24 images a second. I guess we've all "failed as viewers" then....

Do you really think that to appreciate Brakhage's painted films it is necessary to 'properly process' every single frame of the film? Do you not think the point is more to do with the perceptible appearance of those frames in motion? The movement, or illusion of movement, that is created when these frames are seen in rapid succession, or sometimes the huge contrast between disparate and unrelated frames. I find that these techniques connect directly with the brain and nervous system in ways that practically no other type of cinema ever has. For me watching Brakhage is one of the most rewarding film experiences I know of.

[planetjake]

No, not an opinion, a ludicrous, ignorant assertion that hardly merits a serious rejoinder. But... I guess, if you insist... Rhythm: Watch either of the duels in Barry Lyndon. Watch Sandro, Claudia and Anna's car ride at the beginning of L'Avventura. Movement: Watch the Blue Danube sequence in 2001. Watch the 2nd to last shot of The Passenger. Light: I'm sorry, but I have to ask - are you visually impaired? Do you have any concept of the art of photography? I guess that von Sternberg fellow was rudimentary too.

Perhaps I was needling you a little on Brakhage in rejoinder, but "paint-splattered" and "semi-amateur" are words that do apply to many, if not all, his films - without necessarily implying any kind of value judgement. By 'process', btw, I mean literally process the individual images, in real time. In Brakhage's painted films, each frame is essentially a new image and It isn't possible for the brain of Fred Camper or anyone else to fully process 24 images a second. I guess we've all "failed as viewers" then.... Fwiw, I do feel that Brakhage is an original and very much has his place within the canon. He is certainly 'useful', if we can ressurect that word... And, in any case, Brakhage is not the issue here. As you say, "Brakhage was never opposed to having his work on video... He never stated that video wasn't useful. But he insisted that the best way possible to see the film was projected... " Quite correct - a perfectly reasonable position.

You know, it's funny, this started out with my criticising Criterion for not broadening their avant-garde horizons and offering a platform to Snow and others. This then turns into a discussion of why Snow and others would not be interested in such a platform, nor should they be, according to some of those who live in major metropolitan cities and spend their lives hanging around avant-garde film retrospectives. To which I say... well that's fine then. If these filmmakers truly desire increasing obscurity and the wilting of the fruits of their labour into imminent nothingness then let their wish come true.

Still, I do think it's worth a call to James Benning at least...

No. An opinion. If you're trying to get a rise out of me, you've failed. Your childish provocations are actually boring me. How is rudimentary bad? How does it qualify as a negative criticism? Fine, they utilize rudimentary film technique effectively. OK? What's your point? Should I pretend that I'm blown away by their films? Does that somehow make me less ludicrous and ignorant? Is it worth mentioning that I actually like all of Kubricks films? That I actually like many of Antonioni's films? That D.W. Griffith is a god to me? That Sternberg is a god to me? Explain to me what you think rudimentary means. It might help me clear up why you're being needlessly antagonistic. I was merely attempting to qualify my argument that the erratic and unpredictable nature of a lot of avant-garde films predisposes them to film projection more so than films that are not erratic and unpredictable: Films that are more rudimentary.

Qualify the term "nothingness". Avant-garde filmmakers are certainly no stranger to obscurity. I'd like you to explain the process that will take place over time that will somehow destroy all the prints by filmmakers who want their work to be seen exclusively through projection.

[Gregory]

I'm glad to see vogler is still with us.

[planetjake]

I'm glad to see vogler is still with us.

Ditto, he made a great point that I didn't think to make. Bravo.

[vogler]

This matters more with detailed, artfully lit 35mm (or 70mm) cinematography than with paint-splattered semi-amateur 16mm images that move too fast to properly process.

Yes, Brakhage was a true amateur - often the greatest type of artist. Of course this bears no relation to his technical ability. Art for the love of art is almost always the most rewarding in my opinion.

"...I have worked alone and at home, on films of seemingly no commercial value...'at home' with a medium I love, making films I care for as surely as I have as a father cared for my children. As these home movies have come to be valued, have grown into a public life, I, as the maker of them, have come to be called a "professional", an "artist", and an "amateur." Of those three terms, the last one - "amateur" - is the one I am truly most honored by...even tho' it is most often used in criticsim of the work I have done by those who don't understand it."

Quote from "In Defense of Amateur", featured in the book Essential Brakhage - Selected Writings on Filmmaking by Stan Brakhage.

[foggy eyes]

Now imagine that the original 16mm negative is scanned at 4k resolution in the latest telecine suite. That scanned image is colour-corrected digitally and transferred back onto film, also at 4k resolution. A print is made and projected. I'd place a wager that, if this was done correctly, then not even Snow would notice the difference. If a digital projector was good enough, you might even be able to project the scans digitally and Snow would also be hard pressed to notice the difference (he might eventually fall asleep due to the imperceptible lack of black spaces, but a digital projector that overcomes even this problem is not outside the realms of possibility). It is not the case, then, of one pure 'original' experience, a celluloid experience, that cannot possibly be duplicated.

Digital's major drawback is that it cannot accurately reproduce the light that passes through the film strip - I haven't seen a digital projection of a film work that looks even remotely accurate yet. It's ludicrous to suggest that Snow wouldn't be able to notice the difference immediately - he has always stated that the film works should be projected on film (the fact that they are "copies" is utterly irrelevant) because they're medium-specific. I can't see why this is so difficult to accept.

Anyway, you can still see them if you want, of course - just head to an archive (e.g. LUX in the UK), or wait for a retro (like the one a few months ago at the the NFT here).

[stereo]

On an oddly related note, if you go to Ubuweb's home page you'll find information about a partnership with Anthology Film Archives (clearly Mekas doesn't mind Ubuweb), but more specifically about audio recordings (full allowed it seems) from their archives. One of note is an interview between Pauleen Kael and Brakhage about his work and methods.

[Nothing]

Do you really think that to appreciate Brakhage's painted films it is necessary to 'properly process' every single frame of the film?

Uh, the discussion was purely about image quality - my argument being that the films move so fast that DVD resolution is less of an impediment to projection that in the case of, say, Playtime. That there is less time to perceive the details (and imperfections) that exist within each image. This was in no way a value judgement of the films in question (nor was my use of the word amateur).

To Foggy, I repeat "If a digital projector was good enough". They're not good enough - yet - although they're getting close. Take the setup you would find in a professional D/I suite: a high-end 4k projector and a relatively small screen; if this weren't extremely close to the 35mm version of a film it would be a useless and very expensive tool. In any case, you conveniently ignored the first part of my argument: that Snow's work could pass from film into the digital realm and back to film and even he wouldn't notice the difference. That the audience always views a copy is, in fact, key. This is the difference between a painting and a film, the place where this 'artbook' analogy falls down. A better analogy would be a record-collector saying that a vinyl recording is 'medium specific', that if you listen to the SACD or DVD-A then you haven't heard the recording "at all" - and everyone knowing that the poor old guy is just past it.

How is rudimentary bad? How does it qualify as a negative criticism?

Rudimentary means basic and, yes, in this context it is a negative (and utterly preposterous) criticism. You clearly have no grasp of even the most rudimentary basics of cinematography. Whether or not you like the films in question is another issue.

Qualify the term "nothingness".

Film projection equipment will malfunction and degrade and new equipment will not be available - 16mm equipment being the first to go. Prints will degrade and labs will stop dealing with 16mm, eventually 35mm also. Theatres and academic institutions will move away from film projection into digital projection, it being simpler and more economical. Internet download / streaming will eventually replace all other modes of distribution. Ultimately, films that have not been transfered into the digital realm will be lost forever.

Of course in reality what will happen is that Snow will die, his estate will be looking for a pay check and people will be watching Wavelength of their i-Phones before you know it.