Re: [Frameworks] "phi phenomenon"

[Santiago Fernandez]

Bernie,

As far as I understand Deleuze, one of the few exceptions he does while 
following Bergson is that Bergson can’t or is unwilling to accept the image 
movement as illusion,Bergson can’t let go the machination that creates it;  
Deleuze says if it’s percieved as movement - wether one is aware of the 
trickery or not - it is image movement. Otherwise, Deleuze wouldn’t have any 
thesis at all.

Enviado desde mi iPhone

> El 22 ago 2020, a la(s) 12:28, Michael Betancourt 
>  escribió:
> 
> Hi Bernard,
> 
> What do you mean by Deleuze then?
> 
> It's very easy to reject or deny what someone else says when you haven't 
> explained your view yet. How about you explain it yourself?
> 
> Michael
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Betancourt, Ph.D
> https://michaelbetancourt.com 
> cell 305.562.9192
> https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Betancourt/e/B01H3QILT0/
> Sent from my phone
> 
>>> On Aug 22, 2020, at 1:19 PM, Bernard Roddy  wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> proofing my post:
>> 
>> 'It's as if the lab protects the writer from philosophy.'
>> 
>> 'Now, all these tests [. . .]"
>> 
>> Bernie
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 12:13 PM Bernard Roddy  wrote:
>>> Hi Pip:
>>> 
>>> The perceptual experiments you describe don't seem to me to be necessary. 
>>> We already have the moving image of cinema. What I have noticed, however, 
>>> is that there is an attraction to the various lab studies. And this will be 
>>> of particular interest for "experimental" animation.
>>> 
>>> One of the things I am a little impatient with is this continual 
>>> observation that Delueze is somehow not saying anything about whatever we 
>>> want to identify as this "phi phenomenon." It's as if the lab protests the 
>>> writer from philosophy. All I have to do is open these first pages of 
>>> Deleuze to see that his thinking begins with broader questions than some 
>>> sort of film history.
>>> 
>>> You write that "Deleuze rejects the notion that motion is an illusion 
>>> created from stills [. . .]." The very reliance on illusion, as far as I 
>>> can tell, has no relevance in what I understand of Deleuze. So, in a sense, 
>>> I can agree. But this point doesn't shed any light on what Deleuze thinks. 
>>> (I don't think A Thousand Plateaus is a reference.)
>>> 
>>> No, all these details about tests with lights going on and off reminds me 
>>> of Bergson, who is also reading that kind of research, or what we would 
>>> today call cognitive science (only it's usually involving people who have 
>>> suffered injury of some kind and can thus provide a case study without any 
>>> ethical difficulty).
>>> 
>>> Let's go to this Gary Beydler. I've never heard of him. But the description 
>>> lends itself to what goes for "experiment" in film. And that would belong 
>>> also to what we encounter in psychological research that subscribes to the 
>>> same philosophical orientation. That orientation, if I'm not mistaken, is 
>>> rejected by Deleuze. For one thing, it fails to recognize the conception of 
>>> movement and time that we find in Bergson. But we're all pretty versed in 
>>> these effects, and so (as I see it) we present these as the philosophy of 
>>> relevance.
>>> 
>>> Deleuze isn't easy. But he's damn interesting, and this is in part because 
>>> he'll formulate all these notions of images to talk about changes over the 
>>> history of narrative cinema (he's selective, and says this history doesn't 
>>> include all the screen work we might be paying for). 
>>> 
>>> (And I signed on to open a thought about the avant-garde.)
>>> 
>>> Bernie
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - - - - -
>>> 
>>> 
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Frameworks] "phi phenomenon"

[Bernard Roddy]

Yes, a fair question. I will be repeating myself, but that's ok.

I disagree with Pip when he suggests that Deleuze is describing shots in
classic cinema, I think he sees himself as doing philosophy. And often it
is whole films that serve his purpose.

Now, all I had in mind, Michael, when I posted under the label "animation,"
was what I understand of early points made in Cinema !. And we can put it
like this:

For Deleuze, there is a context. It consists in a history of philosophy
that has conceived of movement in a certain way. And if I understand it,
the conception of movement belongs to a conception of time, namely that
time consists in a series. Bergson also discusses perception, which would
be central to any full account of what matters here.

But a phenomenologist rejects the idea that time is to be understood as
"clock time." That is the idea that there are these points in the past and
in the future, and we are to distinguish between the experience of time,
one one hand, and the correct time, on the other. That distinction has to
go.

So movement isn't this series of points or frames. The question has
concerned a relationship between what you collect in empirical study
(measured in minutes, say) and movement of different kinds. Now, the lab
tests demonstrate that movement isn't the various frames. They can lie
there without producing movement. You can see each one without seeing
movement (if, say, each is held for too long).

Deleuze seems to refer back to a much earlier time when poses would
constitute a movement. You know, it's like just taking those key frames of
Daffy in certain poses. There are frames between, but in this understanding
of movement, a move isn't something that has parts not currently in front
of you. It isn't something spatial at all. I imagine Deleuze elaborating by
suggesting that there are these movements in something like the way there
are the Forms in Plato.

But, for my purposes here, what we get is not a lot of flicker films, but a
reading of moments in cinema of significance, according to Deleuze.

Bernie

On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 12:28 PM Michael Betancourt <
hinterland.mov...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Bernard,
>
> What do you mean by Deleuze then?
>
> It's very easy to reject or deny what someone else says when you haven't
> explained your view yet. How about you explain it yourself?
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> Michael Betancourt, Ph.D
> https://michaelbetancourt.com
> cell 305.562.9192
> https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Betancourt/e/B01H3QILT0/
> Sent from my phone
>
> On Aug 22, 2020, at 1:19 PM, Bernard Roddy  wrote:
>
> 
> proofing my post:
>
> 'It's as if the lab *protects* the writer from philosophy.'
>
> '*Now*, all these tests [. . .]"
>
> Bernie
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 12:13 PM Bernard Roddy  wrote:
>
>> Hi Pip:
>>
>> The perceptual experiments you describe don't seem to me to be necessary.
>> We already have the moving image of cinema. What I have noticed, however,
>> is that there is an attraction to the various lab studies. And this will be
>> of particular interest for "experimental" animation.
>>
>> One of the things I am a little impatient with is this continual
>> observation that Delueze is somehow not saying anything about whatever we
>> want to identify as this "phi phenomenon." It's as if the lab protests the
>> writer from philosophy. All I have to do is open these first pages of
>> Deleuze to see that his thinking begins with broader questions than some
>> sort of film history.
>>
>> You write that "Deleuze rejects the notion that motion is an illusion
>> created from stills [. . .]." The very reliance on illusion, as far as I
>> can tell, has no relevance in what I understand of Deleuze. So, in a sense,
>> I can agree. But this point doesn't shed any light on what Deleuze thinks.
>> (I don't think A Thousand Plateaus is a reference.)
>>
>> No, all these details about tests with lights going on and off reminds me
>> of Bergson, who is also reading that kind of research, or what we would
>> today call cognitive science (only it's usually involving people who have
>> suffered injury of some kind and can thus provide a case study without any
>> ethical difficulty).
>>
>> Let's go to this Gary Beydler. I've never heard of him. But the
>> description lends itself to what goes for "experiment" in film. And that
>> would belong also to what we encounter in psychological research that
>> subscribes to the same philosophical orientation. That orientation, if I'm
>> not mistaken, is rejected by Deleuze. For one thing, it fails to recognize
>> the conception of movement and time that we find in Bergson. But we're all
>> pretty versed in these effects, and so (as I see it) we present these as
>> the philosophy of relevance.
>>
>> Deleuze isn't easy. But he's damn interesting, and this is in part
>> because he'll formulate all these notions of images to talk about changes
>> over the history of narrative cinema (he's selective, and says this history
>> doesn't 

Re: [Frameworks] "phi phenomenon"

[Myron Ort]

All I know is that I had a lot of fun making a film with old ticket punches and 
black leader. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4atEmXsA92A




> On Aug 22, 2020, at 10:59 AM, Myron Ort  wrote:
> 
> https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Phi_phenomenon 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 22, 2020, at 10:58 AM, Myron Ort  wrote:
>> 
>> Didn’t the Gestalt psychology movement deal with this phenomenon.
>> 
>> "Gestalt principles of movement perception
>> In 1912 Wertheimer discovered the phi phenomenon, an optical illusion in 
>> which stationary objects shown in rapid succession, transcending the 
>> threshold at which they can be perceived separately, appear to move. ... …is 
>> referred to as the phi phenomenon.”
>> 
>> https://www.psychologynoteshq.com/phi-phenomenon-and-psychology/ 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On Aug 22, 2020, at 10:52 AM, Santiago Fernandez >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Bernie,
>>> 
>>> As far as I understand Deleuze, one of the few exceptions he does while 
>>> following Bergson is that Bergson can’t or is unwilling to accept the image 
>>> movement as illusion,Bergson can’t let go the machination that creates it;  
>>> Deleuze says if it’s percieved as movement - wether one is aware of the 
>>> trickery or not - it is image movement. Otherwise, Deleuze wouldn’t have 
>>> any thesis at all.
>>> 
>>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>>> 
 El 22 ago 2020, a la(s) 12:28, Michael Betancourt 
 mailto:hinterland.mov...@gmail.com>> 
 escribió:
 
 Hi Bernard,
 
 What do you mean by Deleuze then?
 
 It's very easy to reject or deny what someone else says when you haven't 
 explained your view yet. How about you explain it yourself?
 
 Michael
 
 
 
 Michael Betancourt, Ph.D
 https://michaelbetancourt.com  
 cell 305.562.9192
 https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Betancourt/e/B01H3QILT0/ 
 
 Sent from my phone
 
> On Aug 22, 2020, at 1:19 PM, Bernard Roddy  > wrote:
> 
> 
> proofing my post:
> 
> 'It's as if the lab protects the writer from philosophy.'
> 
> 'Now, all these tests [. . .]"
> 
> Bernie
> 
> 
> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 12:13 PM Bernard Roddy  > wrote:
> Hi Pip:
> 
> The perceptual experiments you describe don't seem to me to be necessary. 
> We already have the moving image of cinema. What I have noticed, however, 
> is that there is an attraction to the various lab studies. And this will 
> be of particular interest for "experimental" animation.
> 
> One of the things I am a little impatient with is this continual 
> observation that Delueze is somehow not saying anything about whatever we 
> want to identify as this "phi phenomenon." It's as if the lab protests 
> the writer from philosophy. All I have to do is open these first pages of 
> Deleuze to see that his thinking begins with broader questions than some 
> sort of film history.
> 
> You write that "Deleuze rejects the notion that motion is an illusion 
> created from stills [. . .]." The very reliance on illusion, as far as I 
> can tell, has no relevance in what I understand of Deleuze. So, in a 
> sense, I can agree. But this point doesn't shed any light on what Deleuze 
> thinks. (I don't think A Thousand Plateaus is a reference.)
> 
> No, all these details about tests with lights going on and off reminds me 
> of Bergson, who is also reading that kind of research, or what we would 
> today call cognitive science (only it's usually involving people who have 
> suffered injury of some kind and can thus provide a case study without 
> any ethical difficulty).
> 
> Let's go to this Gary Beydler. I've never heard of him. But the 
> description lends itself to what goes for "experiment" in film. And that 
> would belong also to what we encounter in psychological research that 
> subscribes to the same philosophical orientation. That orientation, if 
> I'm not mistaken, is rejected by Deleuze. For one thing, it fails to 
> recognize the conception of movement and time that we find in Bergson. 
> But we're all pretty versed in these effects, and so (as I see it) we 
> present these as the philosophy of relevance.
> 
> Deleuze isn't easy. But he's damn interesting, and this is in part 
> because he'll formulate all these notions of images to talk about changes 
> over the history of narrative cinema (he's selective, and says this 
> history doesn't include all the screen work we might be paying for). 
> 
> (And I signed on to open a thought about the avant-garde.)

Re: [Frameworks] "phi phenomenon"

[Myron Ort]

https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Phi_phenomenon



> On Aug 22, 2020, at 10:58 AM, Myron Ort  wrote:
> 
> Didn’t the Gestalt psychology movement deal with this phenomenon.
> 
> "Gestalt principles of movement perception
> In 1912 Wertheimer discovered the phi phenomenon, an optical illusion in 
> which stationary objects shown in rapid succession, transcending the 
> threshold at which they can be perceived separately, appear to move. ... …is 
> referred to as the phi phenomenon.”
> 
> https://www.psychologynoteshq.com/phi-phenomenon-and-psychology/ 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> On Aug 22, 2020, at 10:52 AM, Santiago Fernandez > > wrote:
>> 
>> Bernie,
>> 
>> As far as I understand Deleuze, one of the few exceptions he does while 
>> following Bergson is that Bergson can’t or is unwilling to accept the image 
>> movement as illusion,Bergson can’t let go the machination that creates it;  
>> Deleuze says if it’s percieved as movement - wether one is aware of the 
>> trickery or not - it is image movement. Otherwise, Deleuze wouldn’t have any 
>> thesis at all.
>> 
>> Enviado desde mi iPhone
>> 
>>> El 22 ago 2020, a la(s) 12:28, Michael Betancourt 
>>> mailto:hinterland.mov...@gmail.com>> escribió:
>>> 
>>> Hi Bernard,
>>> 
>>> What do you mean by Deleuze then?
>>> 
>>> It's very easy to reject or deny what someone else says when you haven't 
>>> explained your view yet. How about you explain it yourself?
>>> 
>>> Michael
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Michael Betancourt, Ph.D
>>> https://michaelbetancourt.com  
>>> cell 305.562.9192
>>> https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Betancourt/e/B01H3QILT0/ 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my phone
>>> 
 On Aug 22, 2020, at 1:19 PM, Bernard Roddy >>> > wrote:
 
 
 proofing my post:
 
 'It's as if the lab protects the writer from philosophy.'
 
 'Now, all these tests [. . .]"
 
 Bernie
 
 
 On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 12:13 PM Bernard Roddy >>> > wrote:
 Hi Pip:
 
 The perceptual experiments you describe don't seem to me to be necessary. 
 We already have the moving image of cinema. What I have noticed, however, 
 is that there is an attraction to the various lab studies. And this will 
 be of particular interest for "experimental" animation.
 
 One of the things I am a little impatient with is this continual 
 observation that Delueze is somehow not saying anything about whatever we 
 want to identify as this "phi phenomenon." It's as if the lab protests the 
 writer from philosophy. All I have to do is open these first pages of 
 Deleuze to see that his thinking begins with broader questions than some 
 sort of film history.
 
 You write that "Deleuze rejects the notion that motion is an illusion 
 created from stills [. . .]." The very reliance on illusion, as far as I 
 can tell, has no relevance in what I understand of Deleuze. So, in a 
 sense, I can agree. But this point doesn't shed any light on what Deleuze 
 thinks. (I don't think A Thousand Plateaus is a reference.)
 
 No, all these details about tests with lights going on and off reminds me 
 of Bergson, who is also reading that kind of research, or what we would 
 today call cognitive science (only it's usually involving people who have 
 suffered injury of some kind and can thus provide a case study without any 
 ethical difficulty).
 
 Let's go to this Gary Beydler. I've never heard of him. But the 
 description lends itself to what goes for "experiment" in film. And that 
 would belong also to what we encounter in psychological research that 
 subscribes to the same philosophical orientation. That orientation, if I'm 
 not mistaken, is rejected by Deleuze. For one thing, it fails to recognize 
 the conception of movement and time that we find in Bergson. But we're all 
 pretty versed in these effects, and so (as I see it) we present these as 
 the philosophy of relevance.
 
 Deleuze isn't easy. But he's damn interesting, and this is in part because 
 he'll formulate all these notions of images to talk about changes over the 
 history of narrative cinema (he's selective, and says this history doesn't 
 include all the screen work we might be paying for). 
 
 (And I signed on to open a thought about the avant-garde.)
 
 Bernie
 
 
 
 
 
 
 - - - - -
 
 
 ___
 FrameWorks mailing list
 FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com 
 https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks 
 
>>> 

Re: [Frameworks] "phi phenomenon"

[Myron Ort]

Didn’t the Gestalt psychology movement deal with this phenomenon.

"Gestalt principles of movement perception
In 1912 Wertheimer discovered the phi phenomenon, an optical illusion in which 
stationary objects shown in rapid succession, transcending the threshold at 
which they can be perceived separately, appear to move. ... …is referred to as 
the phi phenomenon.”

https://www.psychologynoteshq.com/phi-phenomenon-and-psychology/



> On Aug 22, 2020, at 10:52 AM, Santiago Fernandez  
> wrote:
> 
> Bernie,
> 
> As far as I understand Deleuze, one of the few exceptions he does while 
> following Bergson is that Bergson can’t or is unwilling to accept the image 
> movement as illusion,Bergson can’t let go the machination that creates it;  
> Deleuze says if it’s percieved as movement - wether one is aware of the 
> trickery or not - it is image movement. Otherwise, Deleuze wouldn’t have any 
> thesis at all.
> 
> Enviado desde mi iPhone
> 
>> El 22 ago 2020, a la(s) 12:28, Michael Betancourt 
>>  escribió:
>> 
>> Hi Bernard,
>> 
>> What do you mean by Deleuze then?
>> 
>> It's very easy to reject or deny what someone else says when you haven't 
>> explained your view yet. How about you explain it yourself?
>> 
>> Michael
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Michael Betancourt, Ph.D
>> https://michaelbetancourt.com  
>> cell 305.562.9192
>> https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Betancourt/e/B01H3QILT0/ 
>> 
>> Sent from my phone
>> 
>>> On Aug 22, 2020, at 1:19 PM, Bernard Roddy  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> proofing my post:
>>> 
>>> 'It's as if the lab protects the writer from philosophy.'
>>> 
>>> 'Now, all these tests [. . .]"
>>> 
>>> Bernie
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 12:13 PM Bernard Roddy >> > wrote:
>>> Hi Pip:
>>> 
>>> The perceptual experiments you describe don't seem to me to be necessary. 
>>> We already have the moving image of cinema. What I have noticed, however, 
>>> is that there is an attraction to the various lab studies. And this will be 
>>> of particular interest for "experimental" animation.
>>> 
>>> One of the things I am a little impatient with is this continual 
>>> observation that Delueze is somehow not saying anything about whatever we 
>>> want to identify as this "phi phenomenon." It's as if the lab protests the 
>>> writer from philosophy. All I have to do is open these first pages of 
>>> Deleuze to see that his thinking begins with broader questions than some 
>>> sort of film history.
>>> 
>>> You write that "Deleuze rejects the notion that motion is an illusion 
>>> created from stills [. . .]." The very reliance on illusion, as far as I 
>>> can tell, has no relevance in what I understand of Deleuze. So, in a sense, 
>>> I can agree. But this point doesn't shed any light on what Deleuze thinks. 
>>> (I don't think A Thousand Plateaus is a reference.)
>>> 
>>> No, all these details about tests with lights going on and off reminds me 
>>> of Bergson, who is also reading that kind of research, or what we would 
>>> today call cognitive science (only it's usually involving people who have 
>>> suffered injury of some kind and can thus provide a case study without any 
>>> ethical difficulty).
>>> 
>>> Let's go to this Gary Beydler. I've never heard of him. But the description 
>>> lends itself to what goes for "experiment" in film. And that would belong 
>>> also to what we encounter in psychological research that subscribes to the 
>>> same philosophical orientation. That orientation, if I'm not mistaken, is 
>>> rejected by Deleuze. For one thing, it fails to recognize the conception of 
>>> movement and time that we find in Bergson. But we're all pretty versed in 
>>> these effects, and so (as I see it) we present these as the philosophy of 
>>> relevance.
>>> 
>>> Deleuze isn't easy. But he's damn interesting, and this is in part because 
>>> he'll formulate all these notions of images to talk about changes over the 
>>> history of narrative cinema (he's selective, and says this history doesn't 
>>> include all the screen work we might be paying for). 
>>> 
>>> (And I signed on to open a thought about the avant-garde.)
>>> 
>>> Bernie
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> - - - - -
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 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 mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] "phi phenomenon"

[Michael Betancourt]

Hi Bernard,

What do you mean by Deleuze then?

It's very easy to reject or deny what someone else says when you haven't 
explained your view yet. How about you explain it yourself?

Michael



Michael Betancourt, Ph.D
https://michaelbetancourt.com 
cell 305.562.9192
https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Betancourt/e/B01H3QILT0/
Sent from my phone

> On Aug 22, 2020, at 1:19 PM, Bernard Roddy  wrote:
> 
> 
> proofing my post:
> 
> 'It's as if the lab protects the writer from philosophy.'
> 
> 'Now, all these tests [. . .]"
> 
> Bernie
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 12:13 PM Bernard Roddy  wrote:
>> Hi Pip:
>> 
>> The perceptual experiments you describe don't seem to me to be necessary. We 
>> already have the moving image of cinema. What I have noticed, however, is 
>> that there is an attraction to the various lab studies. And this will be of 
>> particular interest for "experimental" animation.
>> 
>> One of the things I am a little impatient with is this continual observation 
>> that Delueze is somehow not saying anything about whatever we want to 
>> identify as this "phi phenomenon." It's as if the lab protests the writer 
>> from philosophy. All I have to do is open these first pages of Deleuze to 
>> see that his thinking begins with broader questions than some sort of film 
>> history.
>> 
>> You write that "Deleuze rejects the notion that motion is an illusion 
>> created from stills [. . .]." The very reliance on illusion, as far as I can 
>> tell, has no relevance in what I understand of Deleuze. So, in a sense, I 
>> can agree. But this point doesn't shed any light on what Deleuze thinks. (I 
>> don't think A Thousand Plateaus is a reference.)
>> 
>> No, all these details about tests with lights going on and off reminds me of 
>> Bergson, who is also reading that kind of research, or what we would today 
>> call cognitive science (only it's usually involving people who have suffered 
>> injury of some kind and can thus provide a case study without any ethical 
>> difficulty).
>> 
>> Let's go to this Gary Beydler. I've never heard of him. But the description 
>> lends itself to what goes for "experiment" in film. And that would belong 
>> also to what we encounter in psychological research that subscribes to the 
>> same philosophical orientation. That orientation, if I'm not mistaken, is 
>> rejected by Deleuze. For one thing, it fails to recognize the conception of 
>> movement and time that we find in Bergson. But we're all pretty versed in 
>> these effects, and so (as I see it) we present these as the philosophy of 
>> relevance.
>> 
>> Deleuze isn't easy. But he's damn interesting, and this is in part because 
>> he'll formulate all these notions of images to talk about changes over the 
>> history of narrative cinema (he's selective, and says this history doesn't 
>> include all the screen work we might be paying for). 
>> 
>> (And I signed on to open a thought about the avant-garde.)
>> 
>> Bernie
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> - - - - -
>> 
>> 
> ___
> 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] "phi phenomenon"

[Bernard Roddy]

proofing my post:

'It's as if the lab *protects* the writer from philosophy.'

'*Now*, all these tests [. . .]"

Bernie


On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 12:13 PM Bernard Roddy  wrote:

> Hi Pip:
>
> The perceptual experiments you describe don't seem to me to be necessary.
> We already have the moving image of cinema. What I have noticed, however,
> is that there is an attraction to the various lab studies. And this will be
> of particular interest for "experimental" animation.
>
> One of the things I am a little impatient with is this continual
> observation that Delueze is somehow not saying anything about whatever we
> want to identify as this "phi phenomenon." It's as if the lab protests the
> writer from philosophy. All I have to do is open these first pages of
> Deleuze to see that his thinking begins with broader questions than some
> sort of film history.
>
> You write that "Deleuze rejects the notion that motion is an illusion
> created from stills [. . .]." The very reliance on illusion, as far as I
> can tell, has no relevance in what I understand of Deleuze. So, in a sense,
> I can agree. But this point doesn't shed any light on what Deleuze thinks.
> (I don't think A Thousand Plateaus is a reference.)
>
> No, all these details about tests with lights going on and off reminds me
> of Bergson, who is also reading that kind of research, or what we would
> today call cognitive science (only it's usually involving people who have
> suffered injury of some kind and can thus provide a case study without any
> ethical difficulty).
>
> Let's go to this Gary Beydler. I've never heard of him. But the
> description lends itself to what goes for "experiment" in film. And that
> would belong also to what we encounter in psychological research that
> subscribes to the same philosophical orientation. That orientation, if I'm
> not mistaken, is rejected by Deleuze. For one thing, it fails to recognize
> the conception of movement and time that we find in Bergson. But we're all
> pretty versed in these effects, and so (as I see it) we present these as
> the philosophy of relevance.
>
> Deleuze isn't easy. But he's damn interesting, and this is in part because
> he'll formulate all these notions of images to talk about changes over the
> history of narrative cinema (he's selective, and says this history doesn't
> include all the screen work we might be paying for).
>
> (And I signed on to open a thought about the avant-garde.)
>
> Bernie
>
>
>
>
>
>
> - - - - -
>
>
>
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

[Frameworks] "phi phenomenon"

[Bernard Roddy]

Hi Pip:

The perceptual experiments you describe don't seem to me to be necessary.
We already have the moving image of cinema. What I have noticed, however,
is that there is an attraction to the various lab studies. And this will be
of particular interest for "experimental" animation.

One of the things I am a little impatient with is this continual
observation that Delueze is somehow not saying anything about whatever we
want to identify as this "phi phenomenon." It's as if the lab protests the
writer from philosophy. All I have to do is open these first pages of
Deleuze to see that his thinking begins with broader questions than some
sort of film history.

You write that "Deleuze rejects the notion that motion is an illusion
created from stills [. . .]." The very reliance on illusion, as far as I
can tell, has no relevance in what I understand of Deleuze. So, in a sense,
I can agree. But this point doesn't shed any light on what Deleuze thinks.
(I don't think A Thousand Plateaus is a reference.)

No, all these details about tests with lights going on and off reminds me
of Bergson, who is also reading that kind of research, or what we would
today call cognitive science (only it's usually involving people who have
suffered injury of some kind and can thus provide a case study without any
ethical difficulty).

Let's go to this Gary Beydler. I've never heard of him. But the description
lends itself to what goes for "experiment" in film. And that would belong
also to what we encounter in psychological research that subscribes to the
same philosophical orientation. That orientation, if I'm not mistaken, is
rejected by Deleuze. For one thing, it fails to recognize the conception of
movement and time that we find in Bergson. But we're all pretty versed in
these effects, and so (as I see it) we present these as the philosophy of
relevance.

Deleuze isn't easy. But he's damn interesting, and this is in part because
he'll formulate all these notions of images to talk about changes over the
history of narrative cinema (he's selective, and says this history doesn't
include all the screen work we might be paying for).

(And I signed on to open a thought about the avant-garde.)

Bernie






- - - - -
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks