we still take for granted that the place of art is in theaters, galleries, concert halls, and museums. these locations however are but dignified ghettoes, crypts that have kept art away from social life. it doesn’t have to be this way: in the twenties, the soviets experimented with bringing art to the streets, factories, etc. more recently an opera, invisible cities, was performed in los angeles’ union station with the singers and dancers mingling freely among the travelers. when this is taking place, art becomes normalized. it also reaches people who would otherwise never have been exposed to it. today that public sphere for film is called youtube, vimeo, and similar hosting platforms. whereas big business decides what films are made and distributed in the usual circuits, it doesn’t control access to these channels. you not only have a chance to exhibit your work, you are able to show it to a more diversified group.
consider the difference. theaters were once the only venue where an audience could see a film. practically speaking, this meant that an independent filmmaker, with no money left and a perishable commodity on his/her hands, was easy picking for shabby distributors. once you forgo the theaters, there is no longer any contract to sign, no genre to stick to, no required length for the film, no rules to follow. you don’t have to worry about all that nonsense. you show your work as you like it. as for money, it can be left out of the picture altogether. so, it isn’t just that a digital file doesn’t have to cost anything, it also makes it possible to leave behind the raison d’être of most movies: the profit motive.
if you think this would be beneficial, a digital project can be a one person operation throughout. instead of a fully-manned army, a one-man band. all in all, a digital project can be what it is and nothing else.