[Frameworks] persistence (was: The code of)

Myron Ort zeno at sonic.net
Tue Jul 6 15:01:05 CDT 2010 

Hi Anja,

These are films I made in the 1960s.  What you are seeing are short  
clips from longer films.
This is a historical record of early work.
I probably will not be doing any more editing because I have moved on  
to making new films, mostly hand painted.
Thanks for checking them out.

Myron


On Jul 6, 2010, at 12:53 PM, anja ross wrote:

> Hello Myron,
> I watched and could see your videos. Listen, there are some  
> beautyful parts. I have not seen every video of your page but some.  
> And some I find you need to edit once more or actually it should be  
> dark in the room.
> The first one Okeanos and five Okeanos and three Okeanos (it seems  
> dtridimensional) seems to show the whole misery. And it reminds me  
> of Maya Deren but it is something else! There are beautyful parts  
> in misery. To ommo : I am not convinced. I will look and watch next  
> time once more. Some you need to edit!
>
> Anja
>
>
> 2010/7/6 Myron Ort <zeno at sonic.net>
> Yes, I just noticed there is some problem with the film page on my  
> site.
> I will look into this problem.
>
> I think you can access them through youtube:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v2Dhft7428&feature=related
>
> Thanks.
>
> Myron Ort
>
>
> On Jul 6, 2010, at 12:16 PM, anja ross wrote:
>
>> Hi Myron,
>> I cannot open your webpage!
>> Now I need to go! Thanks, Anja
>>
>> 2010/7/6 Myron Ort <zeno at sonic.net>
>> Hi Anja,
>>
>> I enjoyed watching your videos from your link.  Also your photos.
>>
>> Myron Ort
>>
>> www.zeno-okeanos.com
>>
>>
>> On Jul 6, 2010, at 12:04 PM, anja ross wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Myron,
>>> Now I need to look to Max Wertheimer. It doesn 't matter if 1912  
>>> or not. Now we need to discuss the meaning of repetition in  
>>> general and in eminently, especially and specially. So I do not  
>>> have any television so that I cannot back it up with examples of  
>>> daily films.
>>>
>>> Yours faithfully and Tor!
>>>
>>> Anja
>>>
>>> 2010/7/6 Myron Ort <zeno at sonic.net>
>>> Max Wertheimer dealt with this phenomenon in his 1912 "Experimental
>>> Studies on the Seeing of Motion.
>>> The term "phi phenomenon" comes out of his Gestalt Psychology.  Its
>>> all interesting and relevant material which has informed me and many
>>> artists and filmmakers for a long time now.
>>>
>>> I am not seeing anything new to think about in any of this  
>>> discussion
>>> yet.
>>>
>>> Myron Ort
>>>
>>> On Jul 6, 2010, at 11:44 AM, walleyj at denison.edu wrote:
>>>
>>> > Yes, my understanding is that the question of how the illusion of
>>> > movement occurs in cinema got taken up into the much broader  
>>> debate(s)
>>> > between psychoanalytic film theory and cognitive film theory. The
>>> > former envisions a more passive spectator (i.e. one who is  
>>> "sutured"
>>> > by the processes of the "apparatus," which replicates the  
>>> "dominant
>>> > ideology" that "positions the subject" - makes subjects out of  
>>> passive
>>> > viewers who cannot avoid this happening to them, in other  
>>> words). The
>>> > latter - cognitive film theory - asserts a more active spectator,
>>> > emphasizing all the ways we process and "fill in" the input  
>>> from the
>>> > screen. Critics of the persistence of vision explanation don't  
>>> like
>>> > the way it reduces the illusion of movement in film to brute
>>> > physiology, and want to emphasize, instead, the "creative" (in  
>>> a very
>>> > broad sense of that term) input from the viewer's active cognitive
>>> > processes.
>>> >
>>> > Per Nicky's email, I've always wondered if our ability to track
>>> > movement (apparent movement) across still frames has something  
>>> to do
>>> > with vision being "discrete" rather than "continuous" (if  
>>> that's what
>>> > you meant by "sampled in packets" Nicky). If vision is indeed a
>>> > sampling process rather than continuous, that might help  
>>> explain why
>>> > we can see motion in still images - we're primed to do so. But  
>>> that's
>>> > only IF vision is discrete, and the jury is still out on that. And
>>> > btw, I'm no scientist, so please file this under sheer  
>>> speculation.
>>> >
>>> > Jonathan Walley
>>> > Dept. of Cinema
>>> > Denison University
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Quoting "nicky.hamlyn at talktalk.net" <nicky.hamlyn at talktalk.net>:
>>> >
>>> >> I think they are distinct issues, but the authors want to grind
>>> >> their  axes, so they do some polemicising early on in the essay,
>>> >> before they  settle down to looking at the issues around flicker
>>> >> fusion, Phi,  persistence etc. I posted the link because it does
>>> >> deal quite usefully  with how the illusion of movement has  
>>> come to
>>> >> be understood by  psychologists and neuro-scientists as having
>>> >> nothing to do with  "persistence of vision", although there are
>>> >> still debates going on  within these communities about how  
>>> various
>>> >> movement phenomena occur.  For example, the wagon wheel effect is
>>> >> not peculiar to film but can be  observed in ordinary objects in
>>> >> continuous light, eg, car wheels  appearing to go backwards and
>>> >> forwards. One theory has it that this is  because data is  
>>> sampled in
>>> >> packets, against another that says it's to  do with different  
>>> cells
>>> >> in the visual cortex competing to register  contrary motion  
>>> stimuli.
>>> >>
>>> >> If you put this into Google: Schouten, J. F. (1967). Subjective
>>> >> stroboscopy and a model of visual movement detectors, you will  
>>> get a
>>> >>  link to a PDF of a paper on explanations for why the wagon wheel
>>> >> effect can occur in continuous illumination.
>>> >>
>>> >> Nicky.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On 6 Jul 2010, at 17:56, malgosia askanas wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> 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
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > FrameWorks mailing list
>>> > FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
>>> > http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FrameWorks mailing list
>>> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
>>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> FrameWorks mailing list
>>> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
>>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/pipermail/frameworks/attachments/20100706/b865234a/attachment-0001.html

More information about the FrameWorks mailing list