From: Kathryn Ramey (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 18:20:59 PDT
right back at ya. now both our faces are red.
carry on.
________________________________
From: Boughton Jason <email suppressed>
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <email suppressed>
Sent: Tue, July 6, 2010 7:19:23 PM
Subject: Re: [Frameworks] persistence (was: The code of)
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
>>><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