From: Boughton Jason (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 16:19:23 PDT
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
>>> > 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
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks