From: bryan mckay (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 08:50:26 PDT
Sure, there are a lot of valid (and often conflicting/contrasting)
ways of thinking about cinema and spectatorship, but when you're
talking about persistence of vision, you're talking about a
physiological process that doesn't really exist.
On Jul 6, 2010, at 10:51 AM, jeanne LIOTTA wrote:
> I just want to say that I have read this article a dozen times
> since I first saw it, always hoping for more. I understand the
> critique they give, of both persistence and phi as passive cognitive
> theories of the illusion of movement, but seems like the paper
> doesnt really offer us more than some other cognitive theories of
> the illusion of movement in which, if I am reading this correclty,
> they refer specifically to film as having a very slight articulation
> of difference between the frames. Well, yes, except when it doesnt.
> Of course we all willfully refuse to be passive as viewers and seek
> a theory whereby such activity can be reinforced via our perceptual
> apparatus. Eisenstein wanted that and I want that too. Yet somehow
> during this life of viewing reading thinking and perceiving each
> theory seems to sometimes hold true and not necessarily in
> opposition to the others. Am thinking about Bohr's Complementarity.
> Will that help us? Obviously its all magic etc.
> ;)
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:39 AM, email suppressed
> > wrote:
> The persistence theory has been wholly discredited as a way of
> explaining the illusion of mevement. Link here to a good critique of
> the theory and its persistence among film theorists:
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20080526105906/www.uca.edu/org/ccsmi/ccsmi/classicwork/Myth+Revisited.htm
>
> Nicky Hamlyn.
>
>
> On 6 Jul 2010, at 14:22, bryan mckay wrote:
>
>> This may be a little pedantic, but the afterimage is not
>> "persistence of vision," it's just an afterimage, which is
>> something in and of itself. Persistence of vision refers to a
>> theory relating to how viewers perceive cinematic motion. A theory,
>> I should add, that has been largely disproved by scientists,
>> despite film theorists still hanging on to the notion. Experiencing
>> film is a complex cognitive process, an active process, and not a
>> passive piling on of images in our retina.
>>
>> Bryan
>>
>> On Jul 6, 2010, at 7:21 AM, Amanda Christie wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Anja,
>>>
>>> my apologies... when i used the word "intense" I was referring to
>>> the intensity of the flicker effect on the human brain in terms of
>>> it's power to cause psychological effects (similar to the
>>> hallucinogenic results of a dream machine)... not to emotional or
>>> aesthetic intensity....
>>>
>>> I don't argue with you... the after image left behind is what is
>>> called "persistence of vision" and it is very real and very
>>> beautiful. And I do like Paul Sharits' films very much as well.
>>>
>>> I was simply trying to clear up what appeared to be some
>>> confusion, and alas, I seem to have created even more.
>>> that still image on the blog post is not from Tony Conrad's "The
>>> Flicker"....
>>>
>>> Have a good day,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Amanda Dawn Christie
>>> --------------------------------
>>> Master of Fine Arts
>>> www.amandadawnchristie.ca
>>> --------------------------------
>>> 506-871-2062
>>> email suppressed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 6-Jul-10, at 8:14 AM, anja ross wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hello Amanda,
>>>> I quote you:
>>>> Yes, Paul Sharits' films do use the technique of flicker, but
>>>> Tony Conrad's film is a much more intense approach (THIS IS THE
>>>> QUESTION OF PERCEPTION AND TASTE), as it is pure black and white
>>>> with no representational human forms. you receive the after
>>>> image, the intense image, if you combine white frames and black
>>>> frames with an image inbetween. So what.
>>>> Honestly I do not know Tony Conrads flicker, but the Still itself
>>>> is beautyful on the blog perhaps he should do something on paper.
>>>>
>>>> Faithfully and a good daqy, Anja
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2010/7/6 Amanda Christie <email suppressed>
>>>> Hello Anja,
>>>>
>>>> I believe that Brjorn is referring to the title of a film called
>>>> "The Flicker" made by Tony Conrad in 1965.
>>>> This film does use the phenomenon of flicker as you described,
>>>> but it is a specific work of art that Bjorn is referring to.
>>>>
>>>> here is a link to an interview with Tony Conrad about "The
>>>> Flicker" in case you are interested.
>>>> http://flicker75.blogspot.com/2008/01/tony-conrad.html
>>>>
>>>> Yes, Paul Sharits' films do use the technique of flicker, but
>>>> Tony Conrad's film is a much more intense approach, as it is pure
>>>> black and white with no representational human forms.
>>>>
>>>> Amanda Dawn Christie
>>>> --------------------------------
>>>> Master of Fine Arts
>>>> www.amandadawnchristie.ca
>>>> --------------------------------
>>>> 506-871-2062
>>>> email suppressed
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6-Jul-10, at 7:49 AM, anja ross wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Mister Lundgren,
>>>>> Flicker means, one kaderpicture to another (25 frames = 1 sec).
>>>>> See Paul Sharits films, so and we are still slow with our eyes
>>>>> so that you get the flash by watching.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes, ANJA C. ROSS
>>>>> www.anjaross.blogspot.com (digital without zelluloid)
>>>>>
>>>>> 2010/7/6 Lundgren <email suppressed>
>>>>> Hi
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you happen to have a code to the flicker?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Björn Lundgren
>>>>> Sweden
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Tony Conrad" <email suppressed>
>>>>> To: "Experimental Film Discussion List" <email suppressed
>>>>> >
>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 05, 2010 5:20 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [Frameworks] The code of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > Hi---------
>>>>> >
>>>>> > My "The Flicker" has many of the characteristics mentioned in
>>>>> this
>>>>> > discussion.
>>>>> > Totally binary in its main content, it is in many respects
>>>>> indestructible.
>>>>> > The
>>>>> > sound and titles are analog, however. Kubelka's score is more
>>>>> pointilist
>>>>> > than
>>>>> > mine, which can be deciphered from published illustrations.
>>>>> You might
>>>>> > refer to
>>>>> > Branden Joseph's wonderful treatment in "Beyond the Dream
>>>>> Syndicate."
>>>>> >
>>>>> > -----------t0ny
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Mon 07/05/10 2:31 AM , Evan Meaney email suppressed sent:
>>>>> >> Hi Björn:
>>>>> >> It's funny, I'm actually teaching a class about codes and
>>>>> sequences
>>>>> >> in cinema in the fall, stateside - Kubelka's AR is an
>>>>> important part
>>>>> >> of the syllabus. I haven't found a ton of work about the
>>>>> _specific_
>>>>> >> code at work in AR but I was lucky enough to see him speak a
>>>>> few
>>>>> >> years ago about it. He said that he was interested in having
>>>>> the
>>>>> >> exact same amount of light and dark hit the screen over the
>>>>> duration
>>>>> >> of the piece. The presence and absence of information
>>>>> equalizing one
>>>>> >> another. Ditto for the sound, where the noise ( I forget it
>>>>> if it's
>>>>> >> just white noise or something more particular at the moment)
>>>>> >> contrasts directly with the silence.
>>>>> >> I would love, love, love to see that rock and find out that
>>>>> exact
>>>>> >> equation.If someone out there has it, do let us know.
>>>>> >> All the best,
>>>>> >> Evan
>>>>> >> On Jul 4, 2010, at 6:13 PM, Lundgren wrote:
>>>>> >> I remeber reading about Peter Kubelka saying something about
>>>>> that
>>>>> >> Arnulf
>>>>> >> Rainer was the only eternal film, that he would write down the
>>>>> >> concept/code/script/equation/whatever on a rock and then when
>>>>> all
>>>>> >> other
>>>>> >> works of cinema had faded away (by technical death or
>>>>> whatever) his
>>>>> >> could
>>>>> >> allways be recreated perfectly in its intended form.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Anyway, what I was interested in was that form. Does anyone
>>>>> know if
>>>>> >> he ever
>>>>> >> spoke of the "code" or has anyone with access to a film copy
>>>>> been
>>>>> >> able to
>>>>> >> determine it?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> A secondary question is also this: What is the technical form
>>>>> of the
>>>>> >> "soundtrack"?
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> ______________
>>>>> >> Björn Lundgren
>>>>> >> Sweden
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> FrameWorks mailing list
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > FrameWorks mailing list
>>>>> > email suppressed
>>>>> > http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> FrameWorks mailing list
>>>>> email suppressed
>>>>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> FrameWorks mailing list
>>>>> email suppressed
>>>>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> FrameWorks mailing list
>>>> email suppressed
>>>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> FrameWorks mailing list
>>>> email suppressed
>>>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FrameWorks mailing list
>>> email suppressed
>>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> email suppressed
>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
>
> --
> www.jeanneliotta.net
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks