From: Tony Conrad (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jan 24 2010 - 09:32:20 PST
This is the reason that I have not suggested my film "The Flicker" as an instance
of "sensory overload."
"The Flicker" does use "audio/visual stimuli to induce body
exhaustion/trance/annoyance/daze," and in fact has occasionally initiated
photogenic migraines and even seizures, and seems to encourage audience trance
states, annoyance, and dazing (and dazzling) quite regularly and predictably.
However, especially when it was first shown it also -- and most importantly --
exerted a considerable "cognitive" and "culturally situated" "overload" -- in the
sense that "The Flicker" overran the boundaries of cinema, both in its influence
on the viewers' sculptural and spatiotemporal perceptions and in its disruption
of cinematic understandings (as for instance clearly illustrated in P. Adams
Sitney's original invocation of "The Flicker" as central to his founding of
"structural" film, AND in his subsequent deletion of "The Flicker" from this core
position in his argument). But even if "cognitive" and "culturally situated"
elements can be said to "overload" a work, or "overload" its audience (as "The
Flicker" has done in each case), I reject the idea that these "overloads" are in
any respect "sensory."
Moreover, the indications of "sensory overload" associated with "The Flicker" are
not its most important aspects. From the first "The Flicker" was conceived as a
film that comes into being, so to speak, only with the viewers' central nervous
system entrainment to its light pulses. This is not "sensory" in any careful
usage of the word, and is certainly not "overload" -- even though it does
overwhelm the viewers' cognitive processes: ”The Flicker" is a rowdy film; it
brazenly jumps the tracks of polite minimalist abstraction, penetrates “inside”
the viewers and deranges their conditions of presence.
-------------t0ny
On Sun 01/24/10 4:10 AM , Leo Cardoso email suppressed sent:
> i understand 'sensory overload' in the art context as a
> specific term that may be used simply to define a work that uses
> audio/visual stimuli to induce body exhaustion/trance/annoyance/daze
> (depending on the context and creator's/receiver's
> intention). the more immersed the body is, the more effective the
> overload is. part of it is cognitive (data being processed by the
> brain), part of it is culturally situated (consciously-selected data
> to be processed). this reasoning encourages the creator to use more
> abstract-like sound and visuals, as these may concentrate and
> dissipate the receiver's perception, decreasing predictability
> and augmenting overload potential. throughout its history, the field
> of visual music offers interesting cases.
> Scot Artford's 'Static Room [1]' is a good example of a
> piece working with sensory overload (especially when watched at the
> CineChamber, with 10 projected screens surrounding you and insanely
> loud sound that require ear plugs).
> best,
>
> leoC
>
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 6:36 PM, floresgb wrote:
> Even conventional filmmaking can overload your senses, war (or
> other topics on violence) documentaries can make you vomit,
> pornography films can make you come, and amazing films like Night and
> Fog for example can “transport you” to “spaces” you rather not
> visit. On the other hand not every installation or film projected on
> a gallery can effectively immerse the audience. 3-D at times looks
> as flat and fake as a cartoon on a cereal box.
> Cheers,
> Beatriz
> On 1/19/10 2:02 PM, "su b" wrote:
> Tony,
> Thanks for the punctuation.
> I have been wondering about the relevance of gesamtkunstwerk in this
>
> discussion, and the distinction that probably needs to be made
> between
> overload and immersion. 'Cinema' has perhaps moved away from
> total
> immersion by retaining a frontal dualistic visual sonic space, (well
>
> until the corporate rise of '3D', that is). So, is it the
> gallery that
> has remained the location/home for broader understandings of sensory
>
> experiences? Films in galleries often retain that sense of
> illegality... or at least of inhabiting spaces where they
> shouldn't...
> Su Ballard (Dunedin, Aotearoa, NZ)
> On 19/01/2010, at 5:40 PM, Tony Conrad wrote:
> > Please stop!
> >
> > This is not a sensible topic.
> >
> > "Overload" originates in 1) electronics and 2) mechanics or law,
> and
> > the usages
> > in these two areas already contradict one another. An electrical
> > circuit can be
> > said to include a "load", and if it's "overloaded" it draws
> too much
> > power and
> > burns up. But senses can't meaningfully be "overloaded" in
> this way,
> > since there
> > is no power drain associated with the viewer and the film is
> > certainly not going
> > to burn up.
> >
> > A mechanical system may on the other hand be overloaded if the
> > strain on it is
> > too great and the system snaps. Also, in legal terms a vehicle,
> for
> > instance, may
> > be over loaded with people or personal possessions: a condition
> > defined by its
> > potential for an accident (arising directly or indirectly from the
>
> > condition),
> > which is prevented by the police.
> >
> > "Sensory overload" is a metaphorical invocation of the
> viewer's
> > sensory pathways
> > as circuits (not as mechanical systems or pickup trucks), but the
> > metaphor only
> > works if the term is also understood as implying some kind of
> > excessive strain
> > toward a breaking limit, or as tempting accidental and incidental
> > damage -- with
> > an implicit sense of illegality.
> >
> > This sort of stew -- a confusion of semi-contradictory but in each
>
> > sense somehow
> > vivid metaphorical relationships -- is what makes trashy criticism
>
> > exciting. But
> > don't try to extract a coherent critical category out of this
> mess.
> > If you do,
> > the latent contradictions rapidly infect your discourse, and we
> get
> > what has
> > happened here: an "overloaded" discussion of a term that is itself
>
> > "overloaded,"
> > where "sensory" overload has turned to "sense" overload.
> >
> > --------t0ny
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon 01/18/10 5:45 PM , Myron Ort sent:
> >> In 1968, the era of psychedelic light shows at concerts, the
> >> popularity of underground cinemas showing all kinds of unusual
> >> experimental films , concerts by John Cage et al, "happenings"
> >> etc , given that context "Cut Ups" doesn't seem that far
> out to
> >> me in
> >> the "overload" sense, however, it is a very good film,
> perhaps even
> >> a pioneering film, and one that I certainly would have been
> excited
> >> about in 1968 (as I am now), since some us were clamoring for
> that
> >> kind of thing back then. So I take it, we are maybe searching
> for a
> >> "term" which might describe such a narratively "non
> >> linear" approach and this is what you (and others?) are
> >> designating "sensory
> >> overload"? Would there not be several other alternatives terms?
> >> "Overload" has this "I can't take it --too much man! my
> >> head will explode!" connotation which, I guess, Is what I am
> >> objecting to. Cut
> >> Ups, through an approach to montage (collage) breaks up
> (disjoints)
> >> otherwise "figurative/narrative/continuous" type recognizable
> >> shots and reassembles them with a type of "musicality" instead.
>
> >> Its a
> >> musical! An experimental film "musical". Is that the term we
> >> are looking for? ha ha ha. smiley face, etc.
> >>
> >> Myron Ort
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 18, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Jack Sargeant wrote:
> >>
> >>> I'm pretty sure Cut-Ups is on Ubuweb or
> >> Youtube.>
> >>> OK, by sensory overload in this instance I mean
> >> that the film uses > image and sound in such a way as to break
> any
> >> notion of coherence, > so that, watching it, the audience are
> >> compelled
> >> to experience the > film rather than just understand it or
> follow
> >> it. It resists the > normal sensory satisfactions associated
> with
> >> film, both the > experiences of hearing and watching are
> >> transformed, the > combination of linguistic permutations in
> the
> >> narration and the (on > first viewing) apparently random images
>
> >> means
> >> that the audience > have to 'go with the film' and
> experience
> >> something utterly > unfamiliar.
> >>>
> >>> As I said the notion of overload would be
> >> personal, I have no > problem with Cut-Ups but grew up in an
> MTV
> >> riddled world, however > for somebody watching the film in
> '68 the
> >> experience was probably > utterly different.
> >>>
> >>> Jack
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 19 Jan 2010, at 07:17, Myron Ort
> >> wrote:>
> >>>> I was hoping for a "theoretical"
> >> definition of "sensory overload" >> rather than another
> example
> >> of a film or
> >> whatever that I cannot >> easily access. Even watching 77
> minutes
> >> of
> >> Sistiaga's handpainted >> @ sound speed with overloud
> live punk
> >> music, I wasn't really >> thinking "sensory overload",
> just
> >> "unpleasant experience". Even >> multiple screen performances
>
> >> don't seem like
> >> "sensory overload" to >> me, but just what they are supposed to
> be.
> >> I was hoping for a >> definition of "sensory overload"
> >> that wouldn't need to include >> "handpainted" films
> almost by
> >> definition. In other words, once I >> accepted the hand painted
>
> >> film, or films
> >> where every frame is >> really (or really really) different it
> seems
> >> there can no longer >> be anything called "sensory
> >> overload". By "handpainted" I mean >> the one's where
> there is
> >> not so much
> >> figurative continuous action >> between frames like animation
> or
> >> clearly
> >> comprehensible >> anthropomorphic dancing blobs etc. As
> >> someone who digs >> "experimental filmmaking" and
> >> phenomena of nature, (pre and post >> psychedelic) I am not
> sure
> >> there is such a
> >> thing as "sensory >> overload".
> >>>>
> >>>> Myron Ort
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jan 17, 2010, at 4:14 PM, Jack Sargeant
> >> wrote:>>
> >>>>> Although outside the period of the
> >> original question perhaps >>> Balch & Burroughs' The Cut
> Ups could
> >> be considered an example of >>> sensory overload.
> >>>>> But, of course the very notion of
> >> overload would be a personal >>> experience.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jack
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 5 Dec 2009, at 04:04, Myron Ort
> >> wrote:>>>
> >>>>>> Now that I think of it, I don't
> >> think I have ever experienced >>>> anything I would call
> "sensory
> >> overload" as pertaining to a film >>>> experience. Could
> someone
> >> define
> >> this genre for me. What are >>>> the characteristics?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Myron Ort
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Dec 3, 2009, at 4:05 PM, Mark
> >> Toscano wrote:>>>>
> >>>>>>> Howdy all -
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I've been working out a possible
> >> program (or two) of films that >>>>> demonstrate the idea of
> >> "sensory overload", and although I have >>>>> a bunch of titles
> in
> >> mind
> >> already, I'd love to get more >>>>> suggestions, especially
> of work
> >> from the past 10-15 years or >>>>> so. Shorts are preferable,
> as
> >> it's meant to be a diverse, >>>>> mixed program of numerous
> >> artists from different eras.>>>>>
> >>>>>>> thanks much for any suggestions
> >> ->>>>>
> >>>>>>> Mark T
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>
> __________________________________________________________________
> >> >>>>> For
> > info on FrameWorks, contact
> >> Pip Chodorov at om>.>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>
> __________________________________________________________________
> >> >>>> For info
> > on FrameWorks, contact Pip
> >> Chodorov at om>.>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>
> __________________________________________________________________
> >> >>> For info
> > on FrameWorks, contact Pip
> >> Chodorov at om>.>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> __________________________________________________________________
> >> >> For info
> > on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov
> >> at om>.>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> __________________________________________________________________>
> >> For info on
> > FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at
> >> om>.>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> __________________________________________________________________
> >> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at om>.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________________________
> > For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at .
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at .
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at .
> --
> Leo Cardoso
> Graduate student
> Butler School of Music
> University of Texas at Austin
>
> (512) 216-8205
> http://leocardoso.org/ [9]
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at .
>
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1] http://www.7hz.org/projects/sr/movie.html
> [9] http://leocardoso.org/
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.