From: Boughton Jason (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 16:01:41 PDT
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
>> > 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
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks