Barbara Lattanzi created a software that mimicked the editing structure of
Critical Mass:
http://www.wildernesspuppets.net/yarns/hfcriticalmass/main.html

I'm not sure if she based in on the actual "source code" of the original
film or just made a representation of the experience.

C


>> 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
> [email protected]
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>


_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
[email protected]
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Reply via email to