An odd story in the New York Times, about an artist named Jon Routson.
His art-films (which are viewed in galleries, as opposed to theaters) consist of documenting/filming the "ambience" of the interior of movie houses. He has garnered a bit of unwanted attention, however, as his films contain a lot of the actual film being played.
Anyways... putting aside the question of whether or not it actually constitutes "piracy" of the movie, I just found this aspect of film-making to be rather unusual. Had me thinking of some of the elements of Andy Warhol's more unusual films.
Here is the link... WHEEEEEE
...and here is a quote from the article....
Isn't the artworld.... odd? 8)
His art-films (which are viewed in galleries, as opposed to theaters) consist of documenting/filming the "ambience" of the interior of movie houses. He has garnered a bit of unwanted attention, however, as his films contain a lot of the actual film being played.
Anyways... putting aside the question of whether or not it actually constitutes "piracy" of the movie, I just found this aspect of film-making to be rather unusual. Had me thinking of some of the elements of Andy Warhol's more unusual films.
Here is the link... WHEEEEEE
...and here is a quote from the article....
Shot without consulting the view-finder, these diaristic works are replete with the mysterious rustlings, irritating interruptions, darkness and partial views endemic in movie theaters. The shadowy images wobble, especially when Mr. Routson shifts in his seat. You hear breathing and throat-clearing.
Isn't the artworld.... odd? 8)