[Frameworks] persistence (was: The code of)

Kathryn Ramey kramey01 at yahoo.com
Tue Jul 6 20:20:59 CDT 2010 

right back at ya. now both our faces are red. 

carry on.





________________________________
From: Boughton Jason <decoy2 at mac.com>
To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
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 <decoy2 at mac.com> 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 <kramey01 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>How do I get my frameworks emails altogether each day instead of one by one?  
>>Thanks
>>kathryn
>>
>>
>>
>>
________________________________
From: bryan mckay <bryan.mckay at gmail.com>
>>To: Experimental Film Discussion List <frameworks at jonasmekasfilms.com>
>>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, 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>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
>>>>>>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 <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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>>www.anjaross.blogspot.com (digital without zelluloid)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>2010/7/6 Lundgren <50lundgren at telia.com>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hi
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Do you happen to have a code to the flicker?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Regards
>>>>>>>>>>Björn Lundgren
>>>>>>>>>>Sweden
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>>>>>From: "Tony Conrad" <conrad at buffalo.edu>
>>>>>>>>>>To: "Experimental Film  Discussion List" 
>><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 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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>FrameWorks mailing list
>>>>FrameWorks at jonasmekasfilms.com
>>>>http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>-- 
>>>www.jeanneliotta.net
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>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/20100706/18986e17/attachment.html

More information about the FrameWorks mailing list