Re: [Frameworks] persistence (was: The code of)

From: Kathryn Ramey (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 18:20:59 PDT

right back at ya. now both our faces are red. carry on. ________________________________ From: Boughton Jason <email suppressed> To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed> Sent: Tue, July 6, 2010 7:19:23 PM Subject: Re: [Frameworks] persistence (was: The code of) Did I just post that on the list? Oh lord, I am sorry! On Jul 6, 2010, at 7:01 PM, Boughton Jason <email suppressed> wrote: I just love seeing your name, even when it's dumb admin shit ... Btw, when you figure this one out lemme know, the crap on the list is getting a bit much... > >On Jul 6, 2010, at 11:57 AM, Kathryn Ramey <email suppressed> wrote: > > >How do I get my frameworks emails altogether each day instead of one by one? >>Thanks >>kathryn >> >> >> >> ________________________________ From: bryan mckay <email suppressed> >>To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed> >>Sent: Tue, July 6, 2010 11:50:26 AM >>Subject: Re: [Frameworks] persistence (was: The code of) >> >>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 >>><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: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>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 >>>>>> >>>>>>-------------------------------- >>>>>>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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-------------------------------- >>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>>>> (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 >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> FrameWorks mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> email suppressed >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>FrameWorks mailing list >>>>>>>>>>email suppressed >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>FrameWorks mailing list >>>>>>>>>email suppressed >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>FrameWorks mailing list >>>>>>>>email suppressed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>FrameWorks mailing list >>>>>>>email suppressed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>FrameWorks mailing list >>>>>>email suppressed >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>FrameWorks mailing list >>>>>email suppressed >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>FrameWorks mailing list >>>>email suppressed >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>FrameWorks mailing list >>>email suppressed >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >FrameWorks mailing list >email suppressed > > _______________________________________________ >FrameWorks mailing list >email suppressed > >

FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed