From: Sam Wells (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Jan 05 2004 - 11:38:28 PST
> Ajna-Luxi Lucidus-a-um wrote:
> how can an unsubtantial series of intermittent heiroglyphs, a
> technological artifice dependent upon subdued senses convey that which
> is already perfect and inimitable? and even the most flamboyant and
> violent abstractions fail to describe the entrancement of our forlorn
> communion with the natural world, it is still a cinematic usurpation,
> a hypostasis and ephemeral calcification of the primum mobile.
OK I'll go out on a limb and propose that there may be no sense in
which the "perfect and inimitable" can even be imagined *without* the
models, or the hypothesis of "unsubtantial series of intermittent
hieroglyphs" or "flamboyant and violent abstractions" etc.
> the perfect films or videos are the ones that aren't made.
They aren't then films or videos, and they are perhaps *not*, then,
even imaginable.
-Sam
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.