> Watching the film one could assumed Frampton followed a random process but > i'm not sure about it.
It's not random at all. IIRC, both the length of all the cuts and the advance between cuts are numbers of frames with some 'significance', e.g. I think the shots may all be ~ 40 frames / 1 foot. Frampton worked with algorithms, not randomness, but as a form of 'poetry'. Thus, a certain percentage of the 'art' is rooted in the nature of the algorithm, which is derived in part from certain non-obvious poetic associations... ... For another example: I can't recall reading anything about (nostalgia) that references the length of the shots. So one time I screened it for class, I timed them roughly with simple stopwatch. My conclusion: each shot is a 100 ft. load (I didn't examine close enough to see if they were loaded on daylight spools, with the light leaks at the ends then cut off, or loaded/unloaded on cores in absolute darkness minus just threading leader, etc.). This is not only a sort of obvious and convenient practical way to do the film, it also has resonances with the subject matter of Frampton giving up one art form and adopting another, memory and loss, etc. The prints burn on the hotplate until the film runs out. Any camera only holds so much, for so long. Etc. ... Also of note: working by hand in 'analog' media, Frampton was not ultra-picky about hitting any of his patterns EXACTLY all the time. Things will be off a frame or two here or there (and no matter how you load them, different 100 ft. loads of 16mm stock will yield slightly different lengths of usable footage). Apparently, this was not just the result of pragmatic 'accident' either, and Frampton introduced some of the minute deviations intentionally, perhaps keeping his 'human' hand in the game (?). _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
