This indeed has been a refreshing discussion, we haven't had one quite like this in a while, in a while when silence seemed to (need to) fall on the West's imagination of its civilizational others. Peter commented on Scott's and others' remarks... >>A performer on stage is in such control of an audience's attention, that it seems a bit difficult to imagine that performer's stillness allowing the audience to attend all other stimuli in the space, as they could perhaps do with sound. Stillness on stage often (for me, at least) demands even more focused visual attention of the audience>> How does this issue relate back to Christy's comments on self-referential content or Scott's original reference to motion capture of stillnesses (or Robbie's comment on rhythms of editing still "poses")? I was not clear about Scott's interest in the distinction between fiction (animation) and motion problems (biomechanics), were you implying you are interested in the capture of different stillnesses /"motion problems"? How would this connect to cognitive science and visualizations of consciousness? I was intrigued by Palindrome's description of Frieder's "Loss" - the painting that <"the more it is viewed, the more the picture degenerates. Dark splotches gradually appear corresponding to the physical shapes of the people observing it. Thus, through viewing, the art is used up> very interesting, since it refers us to movement (?) of viewing, or stillness (shape, effort?) of the viewers in the interface. Frieder's interface must be proximity, no? That's not quite what you had in mind, Scott, but we perhaps need to talk about mind and perception more often? greetings Johannes Birringer AlienNation Co. http://www.aliennationcompany.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/24/02