From: Boughton Jason (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 16:33:05 PDT
Well I'm in good company then. Still, my apologies to the list!
On Jul 6, 2010, at 7:27 PM, Amanda Christie <email suppressed
> wrote:
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks