From: Amanda Christie (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 16:27:19 PDT
That's okay Jason. It sure made me smile!
I was feeling a bit guilty when my first post in years, not only
misused the idea of persistence of vision, but also unintentionally
started a long and passionate debate.... (it was a good read though!)
but dang, i've gotten rusty... yowza.
[insert persistence of red cheeks here]
Amanda Dawn Christie
--------------------------------
Master of Fine Arts
www.amandadawnchristie.ca
--------------------------------
506-871-2062
email suppressed
On 6-Jul-10, at 8:19 PM, Boughton Jason wrote:
> 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
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks