From: Adam Trowbridge (email suppressed)
Date: Thu May 03 2007 - 23:07:14 PDT
Thanks for the detailed response, it was much more informative than
I had hoped for.
On May 2, 2007, at 12:58 PM, Tony Conrad wrote:
> However, I have to add here that the category of "artwork intended
> to directly stimulate the
> brain, without conscious interpretation, using flickering
> light...as direct stimulation and not
> an aesthetic technique," is a small part of works such as "The
> Flicker"--about which there are
> far more interesting things to say. And work on what you call this
> "aesthetic technique,"
> including also sociological, historical, conceptual, psychological,
> and political factors, has
> very much continued, and has been extremely fruitful.
I did not intend for the statement about "aesthetic technique" to be
anything other than a way to make my question specific. I did not
intent to put "The Flicker" in a singular category but instead to ask
about the specific part of the film, and your comments to John
Geiger, that I was researching.
I've run across many flicker film and video listings but I was
specifically seeking ones that address the neurological
possibilities. I think your answer went a long way in explaining why
this research is difficult if at all possible to continue in film and/
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.