Re: [Frameworks] Is there any editing pattern on Critical Mass by Hollis Frampton?
I just tried this software! It is really interesting!! Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2015 17:01:49 -0400 From: direc...@lift.on.ca To: frameworks@jonasmekasfilms.com Subject: Re: [Frameworks] Is there any editing pattern on Critical Mass by Hollis Frampton? 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 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
[Frameworks] Is there any editing pattern on Critical Mass by Hollis Frampton?
Hello, Does anyone know if there's any pattern Hollis Frampton followed to do the editing for Critical Mass. I have read he used three equal copies done after the filming to create the editing process, but i haven't found any comments about the pattern or the formula used for the montage. Watching the film one could assumed Frampton followed a random process but i'm not sure about it. Any suggestion will be appreciated. Thank you very much, Albert Alcozhttp://www.visionaryfilm.net/ ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Is there any editing pattern on Critical Mass by Hollis Frampton?
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
Re: [Frameworks] Is there any editing pattern on Critical Mass by Hollis Frampton?
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 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Is there any editing pattern on Critical Mass by Hollis Frampton?
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 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
