I have a real problem with decrying 'art' as art has no rules to learn or technique to copy. If you want to talk painting few if the grand masters studied painting they just painted and found their style.
And if we think about it - it's the same with editing. The training the apprenticeship we refer to was mostly learning technical crap and not actually anything to do with the process if editing.
Conversely you can teach someone good tricks for syncing action to sound or how to pull things together in terms of bin organization and so on but is argue you either got it or you don't.
I was winning awards for editing at 20 and now 30 years into my career I still cut in the same off quirky offbeat way and I still get my ass kissed. Am I better editor for 30 years of practice? I don't know some of the MTV stuff I did in 1991 was pretty innovative and original - a lot of what I do now is simpler and less fancy. I know a lot more traps to avoid and I'm a lot better working with clients now but the core cutting images together? Hard to tell.
I'm a hell of a better compositor for all these years of work and I know exactly where the supers will wind up but I still cut purely on instinct with no regard for any set of rules.
Mike
On 25 Jun, 2013, at 1:57 AM, James Culbertson <albion@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> Of course it is still art (or perhaps better craft). It's just that the art is diluted in an increasing field of lesser-art. Apprenticeship was good for learning techniques, but art is something more, otherwise every editor who came through apprenticeship would be at the level of the greatest editors, and that certainly isn't true.
>
> James
>
>
> On Jun 24, 2013, at 11:28 AM, donbrt wrote:
>
>> The problem is that what you call "The Art of Editing" is an endangered species. There is very little left of the apprenticeship model where you cut learned every step of the editorial process, including how to tell a story before you were allowed to do even the most simple types of edits. Now, you teach yourself FCP and you market yourself as an editor and undercut guys who have been doing it for years. In the end, the product suffers. It is no longer art.
>>
>> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, "Terence Curren" <tcurren@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, James Culbertson <albion@> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Wouldn't it be more true to say that we have lived in a sweet spot of production history?"
>>>
>>> Maybe, but you would have to combine that with distribution. Prior to motion pictures, you had to perform for an existing audience. That limited your ability to make money to the audience at hand, and therefore venue size. (Or a wealthy benefactor)
>>>
>>> With the advent of motion pictures, you could perform once, and then show that performance over an over all over the world. Collecting the same performance fee could now reap a decent living. But the cost of getting to that point was an exorbitant up front fee which limited the access to that profit center. This also acted as a filter to limit the bad products.
>>>
>>> Now we have the ability to show that one time performance to the world for free. But so does everyone. So the challenge becomes cutting your way through the chaff AND making a profit in the process.
>>>
>>> As paid editors, we are an endangered species as more people grow up communicating in images and the "art of editing" becomes a part of everyday speech.
>>>
>>>
>>> My .02 cents worth.
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (28) |
No comments:
Post a Comment