From: anja ross (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 10:29:19 PDT
English is not my motherlanguage but I feel that Malgosia text is poetic.
ANJA C. ROSS
2010/7/6 malgosia askanas <email suppressed>
> I don't understand how the* question of the mechanism* whereby we have the
> *illusion of motion* when watching film segues into the question of
> "passive" vs "active" viewing. For example, "La Jetee" doesn't require any
> engagement of the *mechanism for the illusion* of motion. Does this mean
> that when we view it, we are condemned to passive spectatorship?
>
> -m
>
>
> > 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, <mailto:email suppressed>
> 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:
> >
> ><
> http://web.archive.org/web/20080526105906/www.uca.edu/org/ccsmi/ccsmi/classicwork/Myth+Revisited.htm
> >
> 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
> ><http://www.amandadawnchristie.ca>www.amandadawnchristie.ca
> >--------------------------------
> >506-871-2062
> ><mailto: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 <<mailto:email suppressed>
> 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>
> 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
> ><http://www.amandadawnchristie.ca/>www.amandadawnchristie.ca
> >--------------------------------
> >506-871-2062
> ><mailto: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
> ><http://www.anjaross.blogspot.com/>www.anjaross.blogspot.com (digital
> without zelluloid)
> >
> >2010/7/6 Lundgren <<mailto:email suppressed>
> >
> >Hi
> >
> >Do you happen to have a code to the flicker?
> >
> >Regards
> >Björn Lundgren
> >Sweden
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Tony Conrad" <<mailto:email suppressed>
> >To: "Experimental Film Discussion List" <<mailto:
> 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 <mailto:email suppressed>
> 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>
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> > >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> FrameWorks mailing list
> >> <mailto:email suppressed
> >> <http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >FrameWorks mailing list
> ><mailto:email suppressed
> ><http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >FrameWorks mailing list
> ><mailto:email suppressed
> ><http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >FrameWorks mailing list
> ><mailto:email suppressed
> ><http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >FrameWorks mailing list
> ><mailto:email suppressed
> ><http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >FrameWorks mailing list
> ><mailto:email suppressed
> ><http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >FrameWorks mailing list
> ><mailto:email suppressed
> ><http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >FrameWorks mailing list
> ><mailto:email suppressed
> ><http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> ><http://www.jeanneliotta.net>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
>
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks