Posted June 26, 2006 by John Menick
Today, Chris Moukarbel responded to a previous post concerning Paramount’s lawsuit against him.
As he points out, the press only seems to be able to understand his work in the context of commercial filmmaking, and, like Paramount, isn’t interested in knowing that Moukarbel is working in a tradition of contemporary art in which appropriation is a form of criticism. (In case you’re the one person reading a contemporary art blog who doesn’t know what I’m talking about, try looking into Guy Debord, Bruce Conner, Pierre Huyghe, Douglas Gordon, et al.)
Am I the only person who finds this lawsuit wildly arbitrary? (Other than Chris, of course.)
(Related: Also see this previous post on Godard’s screening at the MoMA.)
Posted June 21, 2006 by John Menick
A couple of weeks ago, I was thinking of linking to artist Chris Moukarbel’s video version of Oliver Stone’s WTC. Good thing I didn’t. It seems like Paramount is not only suing the artist, but also cited a blog that linked to the project as evidence in the case. When will it stop? I didn’t think I would bother seeing Stone’s film until I saw Moukarbel’s short, which actually got me interested in doing a side-by-side comparison. I’ll go back to not bothering.
A little background in case you’re scratching your head:
Using an appropriated copy of Oliver Stone’s script for “World Trade Center,” filmmaker Chris Moukarbel took matters into his own hands and went ahead and shot an extract from the script with student actors in his own studio. The first of its kind in an internet rife with trailer mash-ups and footage remixes, the idea of creating an adaptation of a film months prior to release is part of Moukarbel’s current video art installation, and aimed specifically at pre-empting the upcoming Oliver Stone film’s release in August 2006. The installation piece is currently touring European art galleries, and has just recently found its way online.
