From: anja ross (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 09:22:50 PDT
*phi, pi,pai, Liotta, it is great! Theories are heijopai! ANJA*
2010/7/6 jeanne LIOTTA <email suppressed>
> 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 <
> 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