[Frameworks] persistence (was: The code of)

Tue Jul 6 11:56:02 CDT 2010

I don't understand how the question of the mechanism whereby we have the illusion of motion when watching film segues into the question of "passive" vs "active" viewing.  For example, "La Jetee" doesn't require any engagement of the mechanism for the illusion of motion.  Does this mean that when we view it, we are condemned to passive spectatorship?

-m

>  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, <mailto:nicky.hamlyn at talktalk.net>nicky.hamlyn at talktalk.net <<mailto:nicky.hamlyn at talktalk.net>nicky.hamlyn at talktalk.net> 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>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
><http://www.amandadawnchristie.ca>www.amandadawnchristie.ca
>--------------------------------
>506-871-2062
><mailto:amanda at amandadawnchristie.ca>amanda at amandadawnchristie.ca
>
>
>
>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 <<mailto:amanda at amandadawnchristie.ca>amanda at amandadawnchristie.ca>
>
>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>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
><http://www.amandadawnchristie.ca/>www.amandadawnchristie.ca
>--------------------------------
>506-871-2062
><mailto:amanda at amandadawnchristie.ca>amanda at amandadawnchristie.ca
>
>
>
>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
><http://www.anjaross.blogspot.com/>www.anjaross.blogspot.com (digital without zelluloid)
>
>2010/7/6 Lundgren <<mailto:50lundgren at telia.com>50lundgren at telia.com>
>
>Hi
>
>Do you happen to have a code to the flicker?
>
>Regards
>Björn Lundgren
>Sweden
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Tony Conrad" <<mailto:conrad at buffalo.edu>conrad at buffalo.edu>
>To: "Experimental Film Discussion List" <<mailto:frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
>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 <mailto:me at evanmeaney.com>me at evanmeaney.com 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>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> >>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> <mailto:FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com>FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
>> <http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>FrameWorks mailing list
><mailto:FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com>FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
><http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>FrameWorks mailing list
><mailto:FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com>FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
><http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>FrameWorks mailing list
><mailto:FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com>FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
><http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>FrameWorks mailing list
><mailto:FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com>FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
><http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>FrameWorks mailing list
><mailto:FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com>FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
><http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>FrameWorks mailing list
><mailto:FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com>FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
><http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>FrameWorks mailing list
><mailto:FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com>FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
><http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
>
>
>--
><http://www.jeanneliotta.net>www.jeanneliotta.net
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>FrameWorks mailing list
>FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks