Ahh interesting. That example clarifies a little for me. I see how it applies to your criteria: "given a certain context of achievement, would indeed appear to be a failure, but in which . . tadaaa! . . the artist has moved beyond"
but not how it constitutes "a strange space occupied by a particular obsession" but i also see how that's just an example, and an astute one on Pip's part! can you relink the video? •______||______• On Nov 26, 2013, at 7:34 PM, Bernard Roddy <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks. Pip once replied to a post with an example. A student using a > camcorder hits play when he intends to stop and stop when he intends to play. > Imagine that going on for some time. The result would be an example of what > I have in mind - impossible to take much credit for! And yet . . it could be > done "on purpose," too. > > > On Tuesday, November 26, 2013 4:29 PM, r e <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Bernard Roddy <[email protected]> wrote: > given a certain context of achievement, would indeed appear to be a failure, > but in which . . tadaaa! . . the artist has moved beyond any such wanna-be > status into a strange space occupied by a particular obsession > > Hi there, > > Trying to follow your train of thought. Seems like the technique of film > scratching might fall into the category of according to Hollywood, one should > avoid scratching film, but because of particular obsessions, people do so. > Paul Sharits, for one. And I would say his work expresses an impatience of > sorts, and that the tactility of the scratches (even through visual > perception) amplifies this immediacy. > > Maybe its a start: http://www.bboptics.com/sound-strip-film-strip.html > > > > -- > > ....... > > > >
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
