Re: [Frameworks] Deleuze and Husserl

[Michael Betancourt]

Interesting. Do I now need permission to speak? As a Latinx mediamaker (I am 
Cubano) it seems like the perfect example of colonialism, or at least irony, 
for a curator at the Whitney(!) to tell me what I should or should not be 
talking/thinking about. I am sure all the protestors who have staged protests 
in the past shows at the Whitney appreciate it too.

If you want to have that conversation, then have it. I'm not stopping you, but 
don't police what I want to talk about.



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 25, 2020, at 5:36 PM, Chrissie Iles, Curatorial 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> Most importantly, what are we all doing to support Black filmmakers and 
> thinkers, and expand the discussion beyond the Eurocentric model to take on 
> the larger, more inclusive post colonial thinking that is now so urgent. 
> We’re in the middle of the biggest uprising in American history, and that 
> changes everything and honestly blows all this out of the water in terms of 
> what we need to be thinking about now. 
> Chrissie 
> 
>>> On Aug 25, 2020, at 1:48 PM, Michael Betancourt 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>> 
>> Hi Bernie,
>> 
>> Thank you for reminding me why I don’t get involved in these discussions. 
>> Not in decades ... but animation and avant-garde film is a topic that is of 
>> personal interest. So, let me begin by saying that there is no emotion in 
>> this response I’m writing. I'm not angry, upset or anything except (perhaps) 
>> a bit disappointed. But I’d done with this discussion since I recognize a 
>> pattern of "gas lighting." You can claim I'm being over sensitive, that's 
>> fine. I'm not interested. This is not the start of a flame or me walking 
>> away in a "huff" because you're "right" (I don't think you are, and I'm 
>> not), but simply my giving up on the discussion entirely as I have more 
>> important and useful to me ways to spend what time I have; if this seems 
>> rude or confrontational, I'm sorry, but that is not the intention here. This 
>> is me making a polite exit, one where I do not accept the behavior I have 
>> observed directed at me.
>> 
>> So my response is simply, “No. I’m done.” 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> For readers who haven’t been following, or who don’t understand what I mean, 
>> go through the other posts. "Gas lighting" someone in a discussion is an 
>> attempt to make the person you’re “conversing” with feel like they don’t 
>> know what they’re talking about, to make them doubt their expertise, 
>> knowledge, ideas. It is an attempt to make the challenge posed by their 
>> comments present go away. Recognizing it is simple. It works like this:
>> 
>> First, claim to have been unclear and explain a point that was perfectly 
>> obvious. This creates the sense that your comments have been misunderstood 
>> and makes the person being gas lighted doubt their comprehension.
>> 
>> Then, deny (some or all) of what the other person has been said, dismissing 
>> it as irrelevant or incoherent. Ignore the rest.
>> 
>> Next, drop in a few ad hominem asides during your comments that are 
>> irrelevant, but put the other person in “their place.” (These can be used to 
>> attach what you think are their credentials.)
>> 
>> Finally, introduce a non sequitur argument phrasing it so it can be seen as 
>> an attack. Whether it's coherent or relevant doesn't matter so long as it 
>> becomes the focus of discussion. Feel free to contradict your earlier 
>> comments since it doesn't matter what you're saying so long as the person 
>> you're addressing feels they don't know what they're talking about and defer 
>> to your "expertise."
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> So as I said, I’m done with this discussion. Feel free to have the last word.
>> 
>> Michael Betancourt
>> Savannah, GA USA
>> 
>> 
>> michaelbetancourt.com | vimeo.com/cinegraphic
>> 
>> 
>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:47 AM Bernard Roddy  wrote:
>>> Greetings, Michael.
>>> 
>>> There was ambiguity in my sentence regarding Pip. When I wrote that I think 
>>> "he" sees himself as doing philosophy, I am referring to Deleuze. 
>>> 
>>> There is way too much to try to address in your post. But whenever you 
>>> introduce audiences, I think you are off track. Or, you are not talking 
>>> about philosophical questions, whatever people teaching film studies might 
>>> happen to say.
>>> 
>>> There is a priority on narrative in Delueze. This I see as distracting 
>>> given my priorities. And all these questions about language derive from 
>>> literary cases of narrative. Remember Pasolini and the "cinema of poetry," 
>>> which was supposed to conceive of cinema as unlike the written story? 
>>> 
>>> Of your quotations, the one from pp. 26 - 27 bears on narration. Deleuze 
>>> seems to be asking what explains the appearance of narration when it 
>>> appears. And he seems to be less inclined to adopt the terms from 
>>> linguistics that were so 

Re: [Frameworks] Deleuze and Husserl

[Francisco Torres]

well, at least i learned some things. at the end of the day that's the
best we can get from life.
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Deleuze and Husserl

[David Baker]

Chrissie,

If you would allow  the discussion to expand to Black Lives Matter 
a film comes to mind I have only seen in an excerpt at Anthology on Jan. 26, 
2010  
as part of a program presented by Danspace Project,
Maya Deren’s Unedited Haiti Footage.

When I saw this work I was overwhelmed by its consequence.
I was very familiar with the Ito/Winett edit of this material, 
Divine Horsemen: The LIving Gods Of Haiti (1954).
However the experience I had with the fragment of Unedited Haiti Footage was 
very different,
an order of cinematic magnitude I have never forgotten and always wished 
to see in its entirety.

Immediately after the program I brought my ardor 
to this forum. 
Pip lent important information,

> We screened the totality of Maya Deren's Haiti Footage on April 4th, 2004 at 
> 4pm in the Auditorium du Louvre in Paris. The screening was organized in 
> parternship with Anthology in the hopes of raising money to preserve the 
> footage. Jonas Mekas dedicated the screening to Jean Rouch.
> 
> What was actually screened was 240 minutes of silent 16mm footage, the 
> complete unique print, the first and only time it has been screened in 
> Europe. The auditorium was full, so over 400 people saw this footage that 
> day. Nobody came forward with funds to preserve it.
> 
> The footage is beautiful. It should be preserved - a new internegative could 
> be struck for a few thousand dollars and a print could circulate. Deren never 
> touched the footage or edited it our of allegiance to the voudoun gods.



Vociferous discussion ensued.

Jonas Mekas in a rare appearance by way of Andy Lampert sent this:

"Andy, please let all well-meaning but little informed enthusiasts know that 
the work on preserving HAITI footage has been going for several years now with 
Martina Kudlacek and myself in charge of  it. Martina has put a lot of work 
into it, and has prepared a detailed description of materials , a plan for how 
to go about the preservation work, and a budget for doing that work which in 
2005 was c.70,000 but I figure now it will be over $100,000.  Martina is 
returning back to New York to continue the work this March, so it will be at 
that time that we'll have an updated budget and updated plan how to go about it 
(changing technologies have opened other choices and possibilities). In 2005 
all my efforts to find suport for sponsoring the project ended on dead ears. It 
looks like it took an earthquaque and destruction of half of Haiti, to open 
some ears and eyes. No guarantee that this will also open the checkbooks, but 
all of you, excited well meaning  people should know that I have never given up 
on any of the projects that I worked on, you should know that much about me by 
now. Maya's HAITI film will be preserved and made available to all. And so will 
be our LIbrary wing built too. On the completion of Anthology, our Cinema 
Cathedral, I have been working for thirty years. On completion of Maya's HAITI 
I have been working only for five years. Both cathedrals will be completed, I 
promise you that.  But I want you to know that talking, no matter how 
enthusiastic and well--meaning, has not built any cathedrals yet. I need your 
concrete, in this case your money, to complete   the two cathedrals.   
Jonas"

Ten years later I am wondering how this ineffable work on such an extraordinary 
subject by an auteur as consequential as Maya Deren is still invisible, 
endangered, unknown.

Your esteemed thoughts would be most appreciated.

David

PS Hannah Frank’s Frame By Frame matters to me too.


> On Aug 25, 2020, at 5:35 PM, Chrissie Iles, Curatorial 
>  wrote:
> 
> Most importantly, what are we all doing to support Black filmmakers and 
> thinkers, and expand the discussion beyond the Eurocentric model to take on 
> the larger, more inclusive post colonial thinking that is now so urgent. 
> We’re in the middle of the biggest uprising in American history, and that 
> changes everything and honestly blows all this out of the water in terms of 
> what we need to be thinking about now. 
> Chrissie 
> 
>> On Aug 25, 2020, at 1:48 PM, Michael Betancourt 
>>  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi Bernie,
>> 
>> Thank you for reminding me why I don’t get involved in these discussions. 
>> Not in decades ... but animation and avant-garde film is a topic that is of 
>> personal interest. So, let me begin by saying that there is no emotion in 
>> this response I’m writing. I'm not angry, upset or anything except (perhaps) 
>> a bit disappointed. But I’d done with this discussion since I recognize a 
>> pattern of "gas lighting." You can claim I'm being over sensitive, that's 
>> fine. I'm not interested. This is not the start of a flame or me walking 
>> away in a "huff" because you're "right" (I don't think you are, and I'm 
>> not), but simply my giving up on the discussion entirely as I have more 
>> important and useful to me ways to spend what time I have; 

Re: [Frameworks] Deleuze and Husserl

[Ryder White]

Amen to that.

On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 2:36 PM Chrissie Iles, Curatorial <
chrissie_i...@whitney.org> wrote:

> Most importantly, what are we all doing to support Black filmmakers and
> thinkers, and expand the discussion beyond the Eurocentric model to take on
> the larger, more inclusive post colonial thinking that is now so urgent.
> We’re in the middle of the biggest uprising in American history, and that
> changes everything and honestly blows all this out of the water in terms of
> what we need to be thinking about now.
> Chrissie
>
> On Aug 25, 2020, at 1:48 PM, Michael Betancourt <
> hinterland.mov...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi Bernie,
>
> Thank you for reminding me why I don’t get involved in these discussions.
> Not in decades ... but animation and avant-garde film is a topic that is of
> personal interest. So, let me begin by saying that there is no emotion in
> this response I’m writing. I'm not angry, upset or anything except
> (perhaps) a bit disappointed. But I’d done with this discussion since I
> recognize a pattern of "gas lighting." You can claim I'm being over
> sensitive, that's fine. I'm not interested. This is not the start of a
> flame or me walking away in a "huff" because you're "right" (I don't think
> you are, and I'm not), but simply my giving up on the discussion entirely
> as I have more important and useful *to me* ways to spend what time I
> have; if this seems rude or confrontational, I'm sorry, but that is not the
> intention here. This is me making a polite exit, one where I do not accept
> the behavior I have observed directed at me.
>
> So my response is simply, “No. I’m done.”
>
>
>
> For readers who haven’t been following, or who don’t understand what I
> mean, go through the other posts. "Gas lighting" someone in a discussion is
> an attempt to make the person you’re “conversing” with feel like they don’t
> know what they’re talking about, to make them doubt their expertise,
> knowledge, ideas. It is an attempt to make the challenge posed by their
> comments present go away. Recognizing it is simple. It works like this:
>
> First, claim to have been unclear and explain a point that was perfectly
> obvious. This creates the sense that your comments have been misunderstood
> and makes the person being gas lighted doubt their comprehension.
>
> Then, deny (some or all) of what the other person has been said,
> dismissing it as irrelevant or incoherent. Ignore the rest.
>
> Next, drop in a few ad hominem asides during your comments that are
> irrelevant, but put the other person in “their place.” (These can be used
> to attach what you think are their credentials.)
>
> Finally, introduce a non sequitur argument phrasing it so it can be seen
> as an attack. Whether it's coherent or relevant doesn't matter so long as
> it becomes the focus of discussion. Feel free to contradict your earlier
> comments since it doesn't matter what you're saying so long as the person
> you're addressing feels they don't know what they're talking about and
> defer to your "expertise."
>
>
>
> So as I said, I’m done with this discussion. Feel free to have the last
> word.
>
> Michael Betancourt
> Savannah, GA USA
>
>
> michaelbetancourt.com | vimeo.com/cinegraphic
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:47 AM Bernard Roddy  wrote:
>
>> Greetings, Michael.
>>
>> There was ambiguity in my sentence regarding Pip. When I wrote that I
>> think "he" sees himself as doing philosophy, I am referring to Deleuze.
>>
>> There is way too much to try to address in your post. But whenever you
>> introduce audiences, I think you are off track. Or, you are not talking
>> about philosophical questions, whatever people teaching film studies might
>> happen to say.
>>
>> There is a priority on narrative in Delueze. This I see as distracting
>> given my priorities. And all these questions about language derive from
>> literary cases of narrative. Remember Pasolini and the "cinema of poetry,"
>> which was supposed to conceive of cinema as unlike the written story?
>>
>> Of your quotations, the one from pp. 26 - 27 bears on narration. Deleuze
>> seems to be asking what explains the appearance of narration when it
>> appears. And he seems to be less inclined to adopt the terms from
>> linguistics that were so common in discussion of cinema during the heyday
>> of Barthes and semiotics.
>>
>> Only at the end do you take up what I find a manageable question, and the
>> one at stake for me here. I wouldn't say the question concerns Deleuze
>> exegesis. It was, rather, in what way are we going to think about
>> animation?
>>
>> And yet, given the right focus, I would like to enjoy Deleuze's work. I
>> just opened to p. 56, where he mentions Bergson and Husserl, and where this
>> term "movement-image" seems to receive a definition. Think of movement as
>> non-mental and image as mental. The long history of discussion around how
>> the mind and body could interact comes back to the surface, but where
>> "mind" is now "image" 

Re: [Frameworks] Deleuze and Husserl

[Chrissie Iles, Curatorial]

Most importantly, what are we all doing to support Black filmmakers and 
thinkers, and expand the discussion beyond the Eurocentric model to take on the 
larger, more inclusive post colonial thinking that is now so urgent. We’re in 
the middle of the biggest uprising in American history, and that changes 
everything and honestly blows all this out of the water in terms of what we 
need to be thinking about now.
Chrissie

On Aug 25, 2020, at 1:48 PM, Michael Betancourt  
wrote:


Hi Bernie,

Thank you for reminding me why I don’t get involved in these discussions. Not 
in decades ... but animation and avant-garde film is a topic that is of 
personal interest. So, let me begin by saying that there is no emotion in this 
response I’m writing. I'm not angry, upset or anything except (perhaps) a bit 
disappointed. But I’d done with this discussion since I recognize a pattern of 
"gas lighting." You can claim I'm being over sensitive, that's fine. I'm not 
interested. This is not the start of a flame or me walking away in a "huff" 
because you're "right" (I don't think you are, and I'm not), but simply my 
giving up on the discussion entirely as I have more important and useful to me 
ways to spend what time I have; if this seems rude or confrontational, I'm 
sorry, but that is not the intention here. This is me making a polite exit, one 
where I do not accept the behavior I have observed directed at me.

So my response is simply, “No. I’m done.”



For readers who haven’t been following, or who don’t understand what I mean, go 
through the other posts. "Gas lighting" someone in a discussion is an attempt 
to make the person you’re “conversing” with feel like they don’t know what 
they’re talking about, to make them doubt their expertise, knowledge, ideas. It 
is an attempt to make the challenge posed by their comments present go away. 
Recognizing it is simple. It works like this:

First, claim to have been unclear and explain a point that was perfectly 
obvious. This creates the sense that your comments have been misunderstood and 
makes the person being gas lighted doubt their comprehension.

Then, deny (some or all) of what the other person has been said, dismissing it 
as irrelevant or incoherent. Ignore the rest.

Next, drop in a few ad hominem asides during your comments that are irrelevant, 
but put the other person in “their place.” (These can be used to attach what 
you think are their credentials.)

Finally, introduce a non sequitur argument phrasing it so it can be seen as an 
attack. Whether it's coherent or relevant doesn't matter so long as it becomes 
the focus of discussion. Feel free to contradict your earlier comments since it 
doesn't matter what you're saying so long as the person you're addressing feels 
they don't know what they're talking about and defer to your "expertise."



So as I said, I’m done with this discussion. Feel free to have the last word.

Michael Betancourt
Savannah, GA USA


michaelbetancourt.com | 
vimeo.com/cinegraphic


On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:47 AM Bernard Roddy 
mailto:roddy...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Greetings, Michael.

There was ambiguity in my sentence regarding Pip. When I wrote that I think 
"he" sees himself as doing philosophy, I am referring to Deleuze.

There is way too much to try to address in your post. But whenever you 
introduce audiences, I think you are off track. Or, you are not talking about 
philosophical questions, whatever people teaching film studies might happen to 
say.

There is a priority on narrative in Delueze. This I see as distracting given my 
priorities. And all these questions about language derive from literary cases 
of narrative. Remember Pasolini and the "cinema of poetry," which was supposed 
to conceive of cinema as unlike the written story?

Of your quotations, the one from pp. 26 - 27 bears on narration. Deleuze seems 
to be asking what explains the appearance of narration when it appears. And he 
seems to be less inclined to adopt the terms from linguistics that were so 
common in discussion of cinema during the heyday of Barthes and semiotics.

Only at the end do you take up what I find a manageable question, and the one 
at stake for me here. I wouldn't say the question concerns Deleuze exegesis. It 
was, rather, in what way are we going to think about animation?

And yet, given the right focus, I would like to enjoy Deleuze's work. I just 
opened to p. 56, where he mentions Bergson and Husserl, and where this term 
"movement-image" seems to receive a definition. Think of movement as non-mental 
and image as mental. The long history of discussion around how the mind and 
body could interact comes back to the surface, but where "mind" is now "image" 
and the "external world" is represented by "movement."

That's a history making its way into what we would probably appreciate more if 
it presupposed a little less. These are extremely attenuated summaries of 
chunks 

Re: [Frameworks] Deleuze and Husserl

[Michael Betancourt]

Hi Bernie,

Thank you for reminding me why I don’t get involved in these discussions.
Not in decades ... but animation and avant-garde film is a topic that is of
personal interest. So, let me begin by saying that there is no emotion in
this response I’m writing. I'm not angry, upset or anything except
(perhaps) a bit disappointed. But I’d done with this discussion since I
recognize a pattern of "gas lighting." You can claim I'm being over
sensitive, that's fine. I'm not interested. This is not the start of a
flame or me walking away in a "huff" because you're "right" (I don't think
you are, and I'm not), but simply my giving up on the discussion entirely
as I have more important and useful *to me* ways to spend what time I have;
if this seems rude or confrontational, I'm sorry, but that is not the
intention here. This is me making a polite exit, one where I do not accept
the behavior I have observed directed at me.

So my response is simply, “No. I’m done.”



For readers who haven’t been following, or who don’t understand what I
mean, go through the other posts. "Gas lighting" someone in a discussion is
an attempt to make the person you’re “conversing” with feel like they don’t
know what they’re talking about, to make them doubt their expertise,
knowledge, ideas. It is an attempt to make the challenge posed by their
comments present go away. Recognizing it is simple. It works like this:

First, claim to have been unclear and explain a point that was perfectly
obvious. This creates the sense that your comments have been misunderstood
and makes the person being gas lighted doubt their comprehension.

Then, deny (some or all) of what the other person has been said, dismissing
it as irrelevant or incoherent. Ignore the rest.

Next, drop in a few ad hominem asides during your comments that are
irrelevant, but put the other person in “their place.” (These can be used
to attach what you think are their credentials.)

Finally, introduce a non sequitur argument phrasing it so it can be seen as
an attack. Whether it's coherent or relevant doesn't matter so long as it
becomes the focus of discussion. Feel free to contradict your earlier
comments since it doesn't matter what you're saying so long as the person
you're addressing feels they don't know what they're talking about and
defer to your "expertise."



So as I said, I’m done with this discussion. Feel free to have the last
word.

Michael Betancourt
Savannah, GA USA


michaelbetancourt.com | vimeo.com/cinegraphic


On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:47 AM Bernard Roddy  wrote:

> Greetings, Michael.
>
> There was ambiguity in my sentence regarding Pip. When I wrote that I
> think "he" sees himself as doing philosophy, I am referring to Deleuze.
>
> There is way too much to try to address in your post. But whenever you
> introduce audiences, I think you are off track. Or, you are not talking
> about philosophical questions, whatever people teaching film studies might
> happen to say.
>
> There is a priority on narrative in Delueze. This I see as distracting
> given my priorities. And all these questions about language derive from
> literary cases of narrative. Remember Pasolini and the "cinema of poetry,"
> which was supposed to conceive of cinema as unlike the written story?
>
> Of your quotations, the one from pp. 26 - 27 bears on narration. Deleuze
> seems to be asking what explains the appearance of narration when it
> appears. And he seems to be less inclined to adopt the terms from
> linguistics that were so common in discussion of cinema during the heyday
> of Barthes and semiotics.
>
> Only at the end do you take up what I find a manageable question, and the
> one at stake for me here. I wouldn't say the question concerns Deleuze
> exegesis. It was, rather, in what way are we going to think about
> animation?
>
> And yet, given the right focus, I would like to enjoy Deleuze's work. I
> just opened to p. 56, where he mentions Bergson and Husserl, and where this
> term "movement-image" seems to receive a definition. Think of movement as
> non-mental and image as mental. The long history of discussion around how
> the mind and body could interact comes back to the surface, but where
> "mind" is now "image" and the "external world" is represented by "movement."
>
> That's a history making its way into what we would probably appreciate
> more if it presupposed a little less. These are extremely attenuated
> summaries of chunks from modern philosophy. And with them Deleuze spins his
> own equally abbreviated thinking.
>
> For me, it was about the appearance of movement in cinema and how it is to
> be explained. But the cinema has offered a model for explaining the same
> appearance in everyday perception. So, what we have is a history of
> philosophy that has thought in terms like film strips offer (and long
> before cinema, as it happens).
>
> My reference to Husserl presents the alternative. You may want to think
> about differences between past and future frames, 

[Frameworks] Deleuze and Husserl

[Bernard Roddy]

Greetings, Michael.

There was ambiguity in my sentence regarding Pip. When I wrote that I think
"he" sees himself as doing philosophy, I am referring to Deleuze.

There is way too much to try to address in your post. But whenever you
introduce audiences, I think you are off track. Or, you are not talking
about philosophical questions, whatever people teaching film studies might
happen to say.

There is a priority on narrative in Delueze. This I see as distracting
given my priorities. And all these questions about language derive from
literary cases of narrative. Remember Pasolini and the "cinema of poetry,"
which was supposed to conceive of cinema as unlike the written story?

Of your quotations, the one from pp. 26 - 27 bears on narration. Deleuze
seems to be asking what explains the appearance of narration when it
appears. And he seems to be less inclined to adopt the terms from
linguistics that were so common in discussion of cinema during the heyday
of Barthes and semiotics.

Only at the end do you take up what I find a manageable question, and the
one at stake for me here. I wouldn't say the question concerns Deleuze
exegesis. It was, rather, in what way are we going to think about
animation?

And yet, given the right focus, I would like to enjoy Deleuze's work. I
just opened to p. 56, where he mentions Bergson and Husserl, and where this
term "movement-image" seems to receive a definition. Think of movement as
non-mental and image as mental. The long history of discussion around how
the mind and body could interact comes back to the surface, but where
"mind" is now "image" and the "external world" is represented by "movement."

That's a history making its way into what we would probably appreciate more
if it presupposed a little less. These are extremely attenuated summaries
of chunks from modern philosophy. And with them Deleuze spins his own
equally abbreviated thinking.

For me, it was about the appearance of movement in cinema and how it is to
be explained. But the cinema has offered a model for explaining the same
appearance in everyday perception. So, what we have is a history of
philosophy that has thought in terms like film strips offer (and long
before cinema, as it happens).

My reference to Husserl presents the alternative. You may want to think
about differences between past and future frames, but you'll end up with
nonexistent parts of something that is supposed to be presently observed
(what is past is gone). So in Husserl we have an incredibly developed
alternative nobody bothers with. (And who is really going to know what
Derrida's thinking about Husserl involved? I mean, seriously.)

Option 1: You understand time as if it is made up of moments that can be
divided. The model is space. Option 2: You realize that you only perceive
what is present. And you also realize that doing geometry isn't the same as
drawing conclusions from your little sketches. In geometry, Husserl says,
you work with essences. There is a point of contact with your sketch, but
your basis for thinking is not empirical.

And so we have Ariadne and the construction of space without temporal
parts. We have geometry done on a grand scale. And we have an alternative
for the person who shoots frame by frame her drawings of figures - or the
navigation of her architectural designs.

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