Tumblelog by Soup.io
  • 3d1on
  • Headbanger
  • MaybeADayOff
  • YochevedPuah
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

March 07 2018

8525 220f 350
Reposted bymangoeNicootatzejanuschytrusnaichKaviahckisbackdotmariuszkhabarakherqoskigubertniedoskonalosc

Perceived Returns Motion

(EPUB, 22.1 KB)
470212 23:00 Perceived Returns Motion
When one should stop watching
- rejecting moving pictures,film,cinema,television,and video as Forms of Art in the Humanities

It is very reasonable to assume that the cultural artefact known as Vaudeville, the first of its kind produced by the non-Indigenous settler populations of USA and Canada that was entirely native, was usurped and relatively swiftly replaced with thousands of near-by theatre 'playing' the conversely inanimate cinematic movie product of industrial film production. Remnants of the native culture today can be found, somehwat, in 'late-nite TV shows' or so-called 'musicals'. But for the most part, the movie industry (it has many names, but centralized around the same set of production Studios since) remains all pervasive in subduing populations globally around its narrative.

While the apparent demise of Vaudeville does not seem so apparent at all - having essentially descended from prior type, powwow for instance - which were seemingly not always tolerated by settlers, but since have seemed to reappeared - industrial film has come to have the hallmarks of familiar, though uniquely presented, military machination, strictly for the consuming civilian, and outright propaganda medium. This brings one to one of the most vital aspects in the development of Western Civilization since Enlightnement, 'visual art', or more imprecisely, the 'Arts'. Or here, 'art'.

Art is the most concrete instance of its kind identified in human development. Its portrayal in humanity is characterized by at least two ternary qualities, often intertwined. Even if so intertwined without exclusion. Topically, it reduces to varying degree of anatomy, landscape, & still life. In contrast, Art subjectively reduces humanity to matters of peoples, land, and wealth, the source of all power. Civilly, though it may be found one day to be, likely, concurrent to all nomadic cultures, art, alongside its nemesis, science, engender the proper development of a tool-making re: industrial society into something ideally more characteristic of our species.

Irony is not lost in present times when the nature of the physical world that has so entranced the non-artistic community since at least Antiquity in the West, is called into question and performance art legitimatises itself into the centre of incredible artistic conversations of increasing scope and intensity that we have seen no less than four out of nine in total art forms present itself over the course of the Modern Age. A minuscule two centuries out of sixty millenniums, according to most recent findings in archaeology. Amounting to nearly half of all forms art can take in the physical world but in only an astonishing 0.003percent of the time. And that number gets pushed back further with new archaeological finds. Clearly, though obviously too not as clearly to its institutions so devoted to a rejection of Art for 0.06percent of its timespan, the West, its Greco-progenerated institution, has woke to the sense on the matter.

Irony gives way to surprise as such a West resists the forces of Native acting through its peoples. Mass media, categorically five sevenths visual in nature, arises to just under two fifths of its timeline in history to 86%, all but one (print), of all of the forms in which it takes in the physical world. (?Does mass media have a non-physical dimension) It is within the frame of the timelines of art and mass media from specifically within the bounds of the Modern Age that is the focal point of this dissertation.

Temporal and spatial qualities, though, are quite-trivial. Instead one is left with the following dilemma: is institutional response to its virgin acceptance of Art in essence incidental or are the same elements from Greco origin that rejected Art into its establishment ranks behaving instead in a reactionary manner, still rejecting Art with the knowledge that control of its population in this regard is usurpable with institutional, re industrial, mass media production. Or both. Or perhaps the rise of mass media since the dawn of the printing press, outside of that Greco-originating institution (arguably even born out of opposition to it), is simply a product of art itself?

Speculation gives rise to some interesting plausible motives. Criticism of mass media has only existed for the most part for over half of the past century. So it is comfortable ,in one sense, to assume that any temporal flux in development is, again, favouring the side of coincidence, circumstantial.

Returning to Art, then, two of the four Modern Forms, half, are also two of the five(5) forms of Modern mass media. How can this simply be written off as coincidental?

To answer this question, one must peel back one more onion layer to Modern Art Form. Here, we find a central thesis emerge. Are these two Art Forms actually forms at all? It would be sad to assume the West's peoples, as many and varied as they may be, have absolved past indiscretion with Art in general, Art that was always there incidentally, and mastered it? Absurd hubris!

Back to mass media (Modern), these questions never arise since mass media is not the essence of our race as Art is. This, even as performance art (which should not be misconstrued here as a Form) takes advantage of the underlying realities of mass media easily taken for granted. Art is faultless while fault lies at the creative nature of mass media. As creating, say, a book, one may lose the original yet the copy remains. Not much of a concern during a period of time before Modernity when the mere presence of book form could effectively undermine the authority of Rome's Church. Copy is its strength. The fact mass media units - books, records, mobiles - have persistence lends itself to technological development found in Art and just about anything else in civilization. Such development can reverse, as with forced, or planned, obsolescence found in Industry.

Part of the answer lies is found when examining performance art. Thus the central question: does motion have form? The answer is yes. But also, no. For as observing a human walks in a forward manner, its altered shape between steps is not nay more Art then it is mass media. Motion less explanatory, were perception is concerned than something as inconcrete as intent. How can the motion in a work of performance art be less artistic, less Art, than a moving picture, cinematic film, television or video production?

Plank's Law provides a simple question postulation: that form is physical, that physical is atomic, that atomic is particulate, that particulate is quanta and that quanta is energy. Black bodies radiate electromagnetic radiation, altering the underlying perception of the Physical as universal. Something found throughout East Asian culture, philosophy and science. Thus my original question is transformed: can motion have form?

Why do moving pictures have form? While the immediate answer seems quaint, history for example, the contradiction of the perceived physical universe, now a legacy of human misperception, or at best over-simplification, is expressed through the form that all Art takes. Obviously, art is not a likely legacy of science. But Art does represent the placement of energy into the role of legacy en general -- "one is that". Unlike limited human endeavour as with science or philosophy, or cosmology, Art is its very product. "One" is humanity, "that" is form. Art redemonstrates its necessity despite Modern scientific endeavour.

The entire question may be answered by this conundrum between motion ("that") and performance art. Yet this alone does not answer the central thesis, however relevant that becomes at this point.

Manga, graphic novel, and comicbook provide a very intriguing anecdotal to any such thesis. It, as with Form preceding it, is not dependent upon motion. In fact, it first appears to descend - I would suggest is - the first Form Art takes. Simply, illustration, perhaps the most enlightened physical thing humanity has made.

Fascinatingly, the supposed Form that is on-line video, digital video contained algorithmically in temporal chunks, often called clips, proliferate almost immediately hence the Internet and its lead (mass media) subnetwork, the Web (hypertext). The pictorial novel has not faired as well yet. While Corporations controlling software vied for the illustrious position of video codec standardization, a fantasy the motion picture industry engineers soon abandoned, likely due in no small part to the unsavoury competition between elements of power and control over humanity thru the seductive reality, for now, of pictures-that-move, pictorial novels struggled in on-line representation, called copy, as something somewhere somehow between discrete graphic algorithm and discrete photograph. (Photography is the first - possibly only - Modern Art Form and Art Form in humanities since the down of architecture, roughly coinciding with the time of the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.) Graphic novels can take electronic book (e-book) form. But comicbooks have their own standards, apart from the kinds of differing textually representing algorithm used to represent the text of this paper, such as EPUB (a free, or Libre, algorithm; patentless).

Comicbook, then - contrasting with questioning of the two forms immediately preceeding it historically, television and movies, this paper rejecting as Art - has form, indisputably so. But is it Art? Much handwringing is wasted in, and out, of our questionable institutions, questionable at least were Art is concerned, regarding the so-called definition of Art. But since the matter(sic) of physical art is also temporal, the question of whether or not moving pictures constitute a Form in which Art can take becomes non-trivial.

Artists, instead, must contend with a people and peoples whose interaction with Art is met through copy and print, not original. Is a painting art or is its representation in video clip form, as many more eyeballs will potentially see the clip (copy) than the originating Form, or form, the Art, or art, took.

A second question more reasonbly constructed in reality than definitions-of-art is the essential role that Form takes. In short, Art requires form, not Form. Since art is itself legacy, one must dig a bit deeper below the surface appearance for answers. This means that ARt can too be represented in film. It is just that does not make it a form for humanity, outrightly Form. Should art be approachable by any viewer? Should only it be encrusted gold leaf? Must it only be experienced through representation? Certainly, that should be up to the artist. But when institutions controlling the software and hardware by which viewers approach art, does the artist even exist? Could art not just be a representation of artificially intelligent design?

Alongside Western science adopting what Eastern science and culture - a culture terrifically accommodating to the Arts institutionally - knew, energy-centrism and cosmology, Lovelace's algorithm and Zuse's computer entered humanity. This is the age, too, of film, suggesting a inarguably strong suit for moving picture alongside mass media (Art a weaker suit, at least up to this point). Copy thus become 'data', a software type.

Software, energy, was useful to artists nearly as soon as it was freed from the hands of institutional scientist and mathematician alike, roughly in the 1970's. Since then, as artists use computers to integrate with their art we see the rise of the same in industrial film production. And when Silicon Valley's domineering attempts, Computer For Every Desktop, coincided with the emergence of the Internet as mass media form, all systems were equipped, although so minimally as to be a joke (Desktop was basically anti-art technology), with video playback - no native producibility capabilities. That was restricted to separate purchase. Which begs the question of how much more moving pictures are copy systems for social order than anything rising to the level of art. Art Form in video, at least were the desktop computers at the advent of the Internet entering the realm of mass media are concerned, seem a stillbirth idea.

This is not the nature of art form. Manga as a Art Form also becomes questionable too, though. Do we not mold art out of simple clay? Well, photography has similar constraints. But it is also prior to, very necessarily so, technically (historical fact) both film and television. The latter proceeding the invention of radio (as mass media, one could simplify television as radio-film or film radio).

Inverting the conversation regarding the designs of mass media on art, one is placed between observing utility and beholden to the body that is art, Art Form. Art Form is invaluable in a humanity occupied by a conceivably over-proliferated mass media, creating a class-like distinction with those of limited, or no, means of access. But art is not inaccessible simply because its body is difficult to access, that is the nature of mass media interaction. Mass media access is its utility in social order. No such order exists in art. There, one finds censorship and destruction of art as well as on the other side: housing and preservation (curation).

Such artificial inversion produces a fearful wonderment of artistic-like diffusion. While there are always faux artiste, as with faux Form, mass-media-as-art lays out the platform through which just about anything goes. Non-art from artists, art from non-artist, and so forth. As mass media is highly property-centric, actual artistic creation suffers the mischaracterization.

There is a difference between mass media and art, for sure. But that difference is not a equivalency in humanity when it appears to be so. Art can be everywhere and in anything conceivable. Art Form is simple. It is the recognition of the pathology of humanity's interaction with the physical world. It is possible with the advent of rising performance art we do not need any more new Art Forms in the Modern Age. Given a comprehension of art history on the matter, we might just try and wait several thousand years first.

No film or TV, or video, exists without photography. This calculus as "Art" is essentially spectacle. Worthy to note, the viewer is as non-physical as art or artist is. A performance artist no less brings the idea, art, to the viewer than the viewer brings art to the artist. Form supersede this art quanta as the physical world has been often a source of great challenge and misery for humanity. Promoting the idea of art as a exclusively mass media enslaves the artist to machination outside control and ultimately create wonder in place of idea that serves such a master as propaganda just as high-art is served by finance. A mind under the umbrella of wonderment in the absence of intellect need never entertain objectivity, rigours of discipline, the history of the trades, accountability to truth, ethics, or beauty. Wonder is convenient physical discreteness, as with mass media, reduces the very idea of humanity to a space were even love need not exist. Mass media is a behemoth that art cannot serve. Viewers peek out its window and see the multitude. That moving pictures never existed before recent times feeds wonderment like pouring liquid fuel over a burning fire. Yet even more to gawk at. Convenient access is absolutely key, as any artist would explain in relating to their material from their creativity. Wonderment thus replaces imagination. The significance of art ot the survival of humanity, likely our greatest imperative in life, eviscerated from the temporal place. Individuality is lost to increased psychological stress and the inability to attach to emotion, making the idea of humanity - just its idea - impossible to any persistency. All that is left for the individual is to follow the persistent, progressing, ever-changing but empty pursuit of pure experience.

Technologically trivial aspects of moving pictures and video do not account for the over-riding and troubling temporal acuity accompanying its society. The West can therefore return to a artless subsistency, comforted by the knowledge that wonderment will fill any temporal fix with the fear accompanying art's evisceration. This does not require colour. But the effect moving pictures can have on the mind of us creatures of habit is easily exacerbated by its addiction, or with the inclusion of any other dimensions along a physical axis.

Propaganda feeds the mind through repetition of message and introduction of the suggestive qualities to control of mind with a fair degree of specificity. But moving pictures give little escape for undisciplined sensory habit. Which seems consistent in human behaviour with mass media generally.

The West can never completely return to the artless past of its traditional institutions dating back to Antiquity. Temporal losses of its populations to moving picture mass media is enormous. There is no escape! As software could rectify those mass media box(-es) in daily life with humanity we are faced with something like the 'video game'. Alongside time, it seems, the energy to run out art with the wonderment of artificially reproduced motion illusory only increases.

Objectivity is waht is at stake. And as stated earlier, while one may consider oneself immune to behaviour - the proverbial tossing the TV out the window - there is no escaping its modification on Modern life. After all, one of the axioms of a predominantly liberty obsessed society are the growing threats of the existential. Does one want to buy the snack at the store or is one motivated by video ad? Well, is there any difference.

For no reason of their own, or, frankly, by their own hand, really, visual artists must contend with objectivity generally as a hour by hour affront to theme in work. Rendering temporal matters mute. While it is true image does not lie mass media has made the conversation, the greater conversation of respect, about control. As viewers move between video source until arriving at self-gratification artists grapple with still having to present to what is basically permanently diverted eyes. So it is ironic that motion art or video art or movie art is even considered to exist as to the powerful hold it has over the Arts.

Point is, the artist controls art. It is tactical. Artists can only control mass media, if ever at all (almost beyond likelihood) through their creation, not through what they do, which is to create.

This need not be a stated goal of motion media. Arts can still use the optical illusory technique in film, video, vector graphics, and animation. What does that mean in the cacophony of endless verse of the film industrial poet of faux motion? Even so, the artist is simply on the dissection table of whomever non-artist is controlling the mass media dialogue o their work.

Motion mass media will over-represent every facet of society before it will welcome the artist. Since all humans are artists, mass media is quite simply a self-fulfilling prophecy rendering art useless and impotent next to game, sport, drama and comedy (theatre), news, and serial.

It is not just a environmental disease. Flipping through so many frames per second of photograph has been around for thousands of years, just in different form. As welcomed to post-Enlightened Modernity as visual art was, at best, welcomed as 'mechanical science' - on par with mopping floors - motion mass media is contemporary to propagandist scripture, state philosophy, the gladiator theatre, and revolutionary book. All of which individuals cannot avoid in those societies without loss, even conceivably death.

On that last point we dwell still. Every moving picture "work", temporal, is a continuum of those like it that preceded. Lacking that inextricable crumb of intellect, though, one can do away with preceding works. They are irrelevant to the narrative that the daily, hourly life affected by the video is up-to-the-minute and state-of-the-art. What do we do about this? How does one place video proper to convince peoples to stop watching?

History is littered with change that has come from individuals behaving differently. In this case it would require something other than a Show or Clip. 4703021019 Changing perception emanates from objectivity. Change is unlikely if one does not sense any need for it. Objectivity itself is not a one way street either. While it may be greatly a product of circumstance, there is a feedback here in that choices made that cause a demand for judgement is impacted by past choices. Any lacking will cause more need which in turn generates conditions with less assertiveness, less control.

Objectivity is a requirement of life. It is either poor or quality. It can be honed. Doubt, the doubt that there is nothing to be concerned about re: passive viewing of the temporal photography of video et al, can direct judgement towards a end perceived by somebody else. This is a limit on basic freedom for the individual. Choice is not involved. Affecting how one chooses is the aim. And a mature, informed human being can see through the thin disguise of doubt veiled in choice itself. After all, programming is linear. But culture, and moving picture are cultural, at least can be so, is bilinear, three dimensional. It is the moment when the convenient placement of motion picture enjoy the shift from one linearity of program to a different linear programming that is when a suggestion to mental intuition can take place and behaviour modification can be further impacted by the viewing experience.

There is a cultural artefact here. Choice shifts from the individual to the inanimate. When film overtakes Vaudeville, performance, it quite simply and with nearly no exception whatsoever, outside silent movies perhaps, replaces the animate with inanimate. Theatre becomes less a vice and more instrument for perception adjustment.

Today, there is no need for the theatre. Except to maintain control over performance with certainty. Musical recording experience originally accompanying many Vaudeville theatrical productions is equally impacted by its relationship between listener, equivalent here to the viewer, and the inanimate in industrial music (not to be confused with the genre of the same name). Clear advantage persist with the record-playback experience iwth the inanimate. Spectral control and ploys like ease-of-use paramount to engendering not just a convincing experience for the listener to engage with but to provide a platform for aspects of acoustics which musician and creator can take advantage of. It is ultimately a experience with the inanimate, though.

Economy of industrial society has been a centrist voice for institutions of political sovereign authority and academic learning over the past two centuries or more in the West. The idea of a moviehouse playing the same movie, even the same actor or small set of actors as found in performing arts theatre companies is so vacuous an idea as to be extinct from any reason. Yet it exists, always has. For optical-illusion cuts through any language. It affects large, specialized regions of the brain. It is clean, clear, untouched or untouchable, outside the self, like deity or mystery. This is not the product of a 'good movie' but of the movie experience itself. (Not so for the conditioned, habitual viewer.)

Centralized economics would appear to conform with this wonderment model. Remembering choice housed in the inanimate is faux choice as a rule of thumb, the broader context of the single viewing experience incorporates lifestyle and all of the spatial and temporal avenues of living. Costs are minimized. All that remain is whatever imagining is produced successful in the inanimate but through the voice of the filmmaker. What you see is what you get. Decentralized economies obsess on the programming. That is because they are without a centre. And so require maintaining system integrity through formulaic means. When the snack gets boring, adjust the flavour, alter the recipe, put it in a different packaging, et cetera, et cetera. Even the transient experience between 'movie' and 'TV show' has been reduced to a modification of time length, both incorporated into the programming, generally referred to as, franchise. But the flowers and bounty are still unreal. Still inanimate. So maybe wonderment in either case produces wonderment or not. But who is to say both economic models are not impacted thru successful introduction of persistent programs of moving picture experience. To state these matters are under state management and control a understatement.

Changing perception is easier to do when it involves inanimate objects under strict control, here being oft referred to as Art, and what is for the most part individual experience. That is why the somewhat oxymoronic home theatre has caught on so well, though for incredible privilege. Which is not to write it is a wholly difficult technological privilege. High colour, high fidelity, high resolution, even high frame rate create further enhanced illusion on top of the already illusory hypnotic experience of temporal photography to the perceived domain of the Arts. ARt might just as well be science or pornography than any perceptible conversing with limit of intellect and intelligence. Too, then, irrelevant to any placement of the Arts institutionally or otherwise in civilization generally it would seem that extracting Art from culture in and of itself is useful for pushing agenda with ulterior motive to humanity, however intentioned, forward on a unsuspecting public. This contrasts with familiar propaganda systems which put forward subjective agenda. The overtones with which video et al has taken over the dialectic, matching its partner in consumerism also, suggests that there may be prior instances of social order informing the entire matter. Considerations of the power culture surly factor in. At the same time it doesn't alter the realities that lead to a successful system, though it certainly continues to benefit the accumulation of more power into fewer hands likely by accelerating planned opposition to the integrity that power has over military force. This conclusion results from the scale and breadth of objectivity technologicalized to hyper controlled sensory machinery.

Viewer participation depends on incentivization (egoism; inhibition) training (not to be confused with any mental, psychological, or hypnotic suggestion), electivity (mostly deincentivization and inhibition), and aspects of personality, such as persona and to some degree mythos (noting its simultaneity with psyche). Learned behavioural paths of viewing pictures-that-move could be in part assumed for one of the same reasons alligned with its seductive quality dependent on the convenience factor, that is, its rarity in Nature. Science depends greatly on visualization and standards deduced from two dimensional source, grade school geometry for instance. And the Art Form of photography predates all forms of film and television, or video.

Mythos, while present, has surprisingly little to do with the viewing experience. At least were temporal photography is concerned. It tends to have the efect of spiking participatory dependency exponentially. More on the confluence of participation and passivity shortly... Story is the information of our intelligence. Lacking in either produces a story that is uninteresting - even not being a story at all. While it may evolve over time it also remains firm in its root. And so in this way, myth evolves from simple story through experience, the experience of those sharing the myth. Film and TV, video, are myths produced from the story of media. Because they, it, are, is, not required to carry Art, it does not produce myth, exemplified by matters concerning objectivity already outlined. Art and myth are a feedback loop in humanity, the former being the product of intelligence. how the West survives without Art while producing its myths is a sad account of the moral decrepitude of its institutions, a consistency surpassed only by the consistency of its discipline against Art, any voice of Jesus Christ an exception (to Rome as well). More than just state-of-the-art, Vaudeville's moviehouse nemesis, the advent of colour TV, and digital or smartphone video represent art by their very physical existence. Any threat to viewership is a "Goliath", even though that myth is seldom, if ever portrayed in moving pictures (noting its connection to the plight of the Palestinian people). Delivering new modes and models of moving pictures is a "Herculean" task. TV's are the alter of late Modernity's homes, once in the centre of the home, now for the time being spread to every corner ot the much ballyhooed 'smarthome'. Video is routinely equated with Security, increasingly a part of civil life on city streets with CCT police monitoring. The story of persons doesn't matter. It is the story in moving pictures that takes place. Goliath, Hercules, and Jesus Christ are subtexts to the presence of temporal photographic non-trivial faux reality. They are trivial up against a "Art" (technological temporal photography) "imitating life" and another "life" "imitating art". This phraseology translates literally as "like a movie" or "like something right out of a teevee show." But these are not statements out of anything real, let alone intellectual (the type of animal that humanity is). They are by-lines to the myth in our pockets, as in the case of smartphone clips, or sitting in our living rooms, as with TV screen. History is no more a story than it is a flatscreen or touchscreen, likely lesser so in fact.

As for engagement, whether it is the passivity of viewership or the participation in the complex of subjugated objectivity, action and mental planning remain entirely dependent on the will of the viewer, or, viewership dependency. Everything is trivial up to that point, easily accomplished through the subscription service model.

P2P, Peer2Peer, were two or more computers hooked-up to the Internet could share, among just about any data package type, movies and TV shows. Viewership dependency have had no such privilege. Industry tries to restructure here around what is called 'a-la-carte'. But the p2p model retains superiority, both in function and use. No small matter.

Does peer sharing undercut the system utilizing perceived returns? It would seem too early to tell. But the industrial establishment is clearly threatened presently by it, though in recent years it has taken a back-burner since p2p is obstructed by the stricter data control culture with the popular smartphone platform. With all of its content dedicated to liberty and the expression of liberty, the liberty of the viewer is the biggest threat to industrial temporal photography manufacturing. It is likely fatal.

And the more educated side of the software community, in part self-identified as Software Libre, can be situated to observe this fear on the part of the Establishment, though pretty much on the outer echelons of power. So it is likely not to be in much of a position to do anything about it. Both lack artistry in any serious degree (though there are likely to be some noteworthy exceptions).

Getting back to returns, when the rubber hits the road, Peter and Mary viewer need a reason to donate a monthly sum of thier disposible income to a blinking lights box displaying temporal photography along a two dimensional plane.

Social order plants its seed in the soil of human autonomy. Individuals must balance between autonomy, society, and the inanimate, or hardware. All three conform into a system of order were autonomy is dependent, society is fixed, which it tends to be anyway, and the inanimate is in flux, or in this case 'discretely animated'. Would Peter and Mary subscribe to a video service feeding their, say, a-la-carte content if the Jones's aren't? Maybe. But irrelevant. Peter and Mary subscribe because their tribe, clan, nation, and society do. Why else would grown adults stare hypnotically at a inanimate box passively engaged with its manufactured product designed around temporal metric as a part of a fee agreement mandate to take up their time?

Feelings of inclusion and shared experience can be commonly rooted in humanity in a way that can only be characterized as all encompassing to emotional physiology. Temporal demand increases with negative engagement, decreases alongside competing systems of order, and remains in flux equilibrium with mass inertia. That last point representing the success of control as the psyche is what is at stake and not free will alone. Content must be fully franchised in a system of increasing temporal demand since time, at the heart of so much unnecessary struggle in the West, is met in the psyche via repetition. Content is symbolically represented through icon, poster, toy, food packaging, even video ad.

Reinforcement of the viewing experience, a human-inanimate interaction, is the superior franchise, though. Content is secondary, 'king' or not. Video is so technologicalized. Engagement exacted through mass interactivity. There is no Art. Only a system of propaganda exists in humanity in this way.

Demonstrating this algorithmically, a artistic model turns to science, mathematics. Logic. Zeroth (-: art require photographic representation. First, motion animation must be technologicalized - both creation and thru viewership. Second, and with the absence of prior models, or in virgin application, acoustics completely the multi-sensory experience. So that, Third, uniform modelling can be distributed. Yet the artistic model has little use for the Second and Third construction. They exist as exclusive to mass media and not art.

Pragmatically, given the proliferation of trade tools one can create the content at will, limited only by energy and economy. Who would do such a thing in complete absence of large scale distributive potential?

Artists can grapple well with this part of the motion picture complex. At some point, however against Industrial wishes, access to technologicalization and (discrete) distribution can be basically assumed. Video has been increasingly dominated by the digital electronic domain for a half century to date. For half that time, almost entirely. What is in play here is the algorithmic standardization of the Zeroth model subset. It is likely one could replace technologicalization - certainly control it - with standardization to wit. All form processes must be attained. Any process under any form of control thus directs creation, control to artistry. Process Zero can be attained natively and broadcast, but is fairly universally further compressed in both raster array and frame matrix, the latter conforming somewhat outside of this construction, here at least, and conforms to the First, technologcialization. (construct Zero synonymous with 'machine encode', lacking general compression) The Second construction, audio synchronization, is dependent on technologicalized local level process of native or sub-native content. Lastly the Third construction relies on the seemingly impossible to achieve standardization of end playback and, obviously, passive viewership (video is non-interactive).

Questioning critically the Zeroth stage is not needed here. Without intraframe processing, viewer and artist or creator are free to express and interpret. It is the First and Third that unscrupulously fix construction so unfavourably to art. The reasons for this are opaque, likely non-existent, likely scientifically provable so. But the spoils, control, clearly favour the progenitor of the technologicalization process constructed for the mass by the Third.

Freeing up the construction process legitimatises video as a art form. This statement cannot be assumed since the Third end point is controlled on the kernal level. Again, 'technology' is already replaced by 'standard'. Even when use is not undermined by competitive practice in construction of systematic process one still require a root of mass adoption. This though possible sans Second construction (slideshow) of what use would that be on a mass platform? Moreover, and sidestepping important technical consideration, ie containment (solvable with subdirectory software architecture), can it even be constituted as a form. It can, except that it no longer resembles mass media form, since there is no scale as it is architecturally driven and can only scale in accordance with are construction into the Third construct.

Cultural instances of this proliferate on-line video today. But, again, motion picturing is not typically represented, except when stylistically or artistically.

This question - could motion be artform with the elimination of Industrial technologicalization hegemony - seems to be best answered once the Second stage is applied and integrated technologically. In stop resynchronization, continuous with 'uncompressed' video (I suspect all video is in fact natively compressed to some degree, possibly electronically) is very linear to represent. So there is a great deal of room for development, almost cliche point in software generally.

Returns seem immediate, non-distinguishable from photography, or any Art for that matter. The potential for objectivity to flourish seems very present. And it would seem to align with photography. Certainly as a comicbook would similarly align with illustration Form.

Perceived returns are not analogous, though, to returns associable with basic intellect. Slideshow technologicalization already proliferates alongside photographic ones. But they are most alignable with performance. It is so open to form that it remains fairly elusive to it.

Movies and TV, video, must be understood as Form to legitimise ulterior motives of the State which proliferates its technology. Private enterprise has much to answer for with some of the guiding practices outlined here. It is hard to imagine not finding some agreement on that. But returns are almost immediately playoff of the constructed ubiquity, a successful technologicalization, however critically, irreversibly flawed. It is the consequences of inaction on this apathy that is a focal point here. Less than a call to arms or manifest for revolt. Much less than that. But isn't the loss of objectivity significant to humanity? Any loss of humanity is, for that matter. While it may be a complex cultural artefact to understand, it is one so nevertheless centrist to mass culture    so    oblique to suffering it can create were routine maintenance of the status quo objectified by taking more than is needed married to the economy of over-productive, competitive practice. Film and video are not mirrors of this society but the seeds it regenerates itself from. That tree is not art. Music, diverted to video formatting to appease its Industry on-line on at least one flagship video site. Photos represented in video clip form. Even on p2p, fully well over half global bandwidth occupied by movie video and porn video. It is not inconceivable even textual sharing could succumb to video formatting. Mass media for the most part presently reduces to book-form, radio-form, with the rest accumulated in digital technologicalization. Books will be ever on-track here, radio singularly to satellite broadcast. These are recent phenomena. Perceived returns of motion technology is founded. Will it be a legacy going forward? And just what is the complexity of multiphotographic slideshow that would require it be contained in video codec at all? That is a answer looking for a problem. 4703041002 (My dated second or third hand 2nd generation mini-smartphone has a fully functional, programmable slideshow for native memory or expanded memory subdirectory playback.)

(In citing video gaming with listed exceptions it is worth clarifying that true motion is produced in the light wave spectrum. Raster tend to generalize towards being categorical temporal imaging. Consider triangulation (vectorize) of photographic pixel arrays along a inert temporal constant and one essentially has a technical temporal photography. As raster graphics do not generalize to this technicality, it is also not generalized to motion. Further complexity is found from animated graphical data containers, some which are popular, probably due to ever-present mass media culture, and so at least here can be ignored.

Another exceptionalism arises when once vector gaming style graphics, or similar graphic, displays on so-called flatscreens. This as opposed to CRT type beam display technology with true vectorization. The existence of triangular-to-pixel (vector2raster) screen dimension process (software or graphics processing unit driven) adds element that qualifies as temporal graphical motion under very strict computer control (kernal level as with 'language'-based architecture).)

Perceived returns motion is caused by temporal photographic mass media. While temporal graphics do not, there can be feedback were, essentially in artistic terms, graphical support is provided to carry photographic data. That in turn can be in temporal motion phase. Are there perceived returns there? One could apply this question outside screen technology, say, product packaging (epaper). Perceived returns is not automated by any perceived motion. The optical induction exists by design, and there is more than one way to alter graphical mosaic. Synthetic reality is the engine that drives perceived returns collected on temporal motion usage, whether or not on human instruction. Perceived returns motion thus a subcategory of synthesis technology. It is a option chosen during design process and is unnecessary in routine technological function. Artificial reality itself is a sub-domain of the simulation essential for basic human inquiry, a contributing model to hyper-analysis of energy (particle collider; weather and climate model).

Technically, the animated graphics counterpart to PRTP (perceived returns temporal photography) is by different design. Objectivity creates an altered state in the mind. It does not require even small faculty of hypnotic induction as the spatial aspect increases.

Latent or not, spatial PRTP could radiate from any surface from which scaled graphic can synthesize (basically a technologicalizaton). Perceived returns depends on viewer interest afterwards, were it rests as a cognitive illusion. Marketing is, in part, the measurement of perceived returns through shopping. Advertising its cognitive interface. Branding, strategically, again only in part, of perceived returns as applied to a static model, instead of the manufactured product of marketing. Its relation to cognition expands into long term memory, although its fans may wrongly assert it is a product of design, which it isn't. Any design is on cognitive manipulation and no inherent nor implied intellect otherwise manifests. It is a weak strategy, though its critics often provide incomplete or weak kneed argument. Perceived returns are not strictly returns, not in the essential literal snese. The feedback between non-existent returns and the graphical perceptions inducing them is successful only temporally through motion or any other distraction producing altered state. Cultural variation would strongly suggest programming PRTP is slightly variable and adjust spatially according to the circumstances of individual viewership.

Diagnostics of PRTP should be easily acquired through a maintenance of individual self-awareness. The maintenance would seek to find remnants of mental projection from both motion sources, objects in the physical world, and optical imagery from the second dimension. The returns themselves would qualify here. Drawing a straight line to effects on judgement, objectivity, follows.

PRTP creates tabula rasa of the mind, clean slate. So it would require not just any imagery. But needed distraction is so wide in scope it might seem that way. Again, perceived returns is a first step. Branding or marketing is just two programs. There are easily others. Even ideas themselves, attempts at altering dream states (high repetition with sensory multiple sourcing), habit formation, and so on. The moment by moment effects can be nearly instantaneous. It almost seems like a sympathetic response to 'feel' what or for what is on the screen. Whatever those returns are, benefiting the viewer to some degree, a alternate party benefits. This could be the State, a government or unaccountable tyranny (corporation), or anyone with a need for control. These returns have objective behind them, a physical entity. After all, the apex strength of the Arts carries return for the observer. Moviehouses had to provide entertainment that was going to be convincing enough that individuals and groups would opt in favour - from street level - of inanimate, silent lights reflecting of that one wall in dark rooms. Motion itself can be that. As its craft progressed, change scaled with ever more of the inanimate. A expansion that continues, the successful program measured by degree of attainment of those kind of objects just referred to.

Radiation amplified to produce this result can escape to at least one other non-vector spectrum. Music can carry very significant returns, scaling even passed or superseding visual arts. This bears a striking resemblance in character to the graphic novel. Naturally in both these cases motion can be represented. Note that moving picture and graphic novel are each themselves visual in nature but tend to use light in different ways, amplified and reflective. Music accompanies the first movies in place of sound track. Television tracked the birth of the Rock and Roll movement in music, expanding the impact it had on its target audience. Music can act as the transient carrier of PMTP during viewing time, taking the load of distraction, freeing up more spatial requirement.

Past all of the variables in ethnicity, genetics, any predisposition, or technical and cultural is the appearance that the depth of success PRTP has had over a protracted period contributing to the more traditional society that come before any attempts to keep Art permanently at bay. Dumbing down people and reducing individual humanity work hand in glove for those seeking to expand power for themselves. It is quite a condemnation of returns, which are in essence forms of psychological attachment. Conformity around lost, or culturally detached loss of humanity accumulate, even accelerate, the effect. In short, without Art, mistakes will be made that could have been easily mitigated. Humans are more individual and artistic than they are singularly social and linguistic. Power can rest assured that however the population gets ahead of any illusory hold, perceived returns motion is very well entrenched in its duty to serve it by its mere existence.

Enabling the impact PRTP has had, the rise of mass media alongside the institutionalization of Art is a part of the conditioning of large groups of people towards a steered direction. That ship captain comes from a line of succession historically characterized, in part, by the exclusion of the Arts. The mechanics of worship, fine. Individual expression in material form, not so fast. What better way forward than to couch Art into a mass media were it cannot exist as such. Art by design is not artistic design, it is design. Actors of the PRTP screen are not artists. Poetry is not Art. Writers of the revolutionary tact who fill stores and libraries with so much revolution one might wonder how we might revolt against revolution itself. They are not Artists, either. In fact, it is routine in press and media to label, artist or art, anything except the visual artist. PRTP is much more than convenience; non-coincidental. Ego, unencumbered by ethics, another obvious enabler. People individually need to volunteer their freedom not to have their temporal existence taken away just as those a few centuries ago in Europe resisted ecclesiastic authority. "Whois to argue against Jesus' representative," one may have said then. How much discourse is perpetuated by today's viral video, "oh did you see the latest," (seeing meaning motion picture) or, "like a movie," "like a teevee show." If there is no ill affect, if it would make no difference whether or not to watch, why not stop? Why subscribe this month at all (consider the now-old cliche "there is never anything good on TV" (even when considering that some cannot afford subscription))? There is nothing free in this life, and PRTP providers do so only because of spatial (material) return. Every TV ad has to be paid for.

Thinking here, that a system of control - objectivity a expressed faculty of intellectual freedom - is not a system of control at all reduces to a lie. And so on either end of any debate on viewership, usually directed at children instead (temporal effects PRTP has on scholastic study), basic freedom, not liberty per se, is lost, certainly abandoned. But being lost of one's humanity is more than a perceived threat. So one perceives no 'problem', like not perceiving loss of liberty to the bishop under Church rule, as one's perceptions are used to create the illusion of community were none exist. Enlightened by comedy but comes from moving pictures. But culture is not at fault by its existence, acceptance of PRTP is. The alternative being the fear of mass death. Individuals who escape the contemporary twin pillars of video and nuclear annihilation (help us all should their be a documentary film about nuclear war) are commonplace. Voice is given to PRTP. Radio programs reinforce its centre, along with magazine, popular and Pop music, anything that has a hold on any mass. The Internet, essentially originating as a science medium, smartphones, smartTV, all conform. Enjoy this magical screen or consider mushroom clouds. Does godliness not lead one away from authority and power? Did it, of course. But to whom but the voiceless. Why should it be different in any society not ad hoc or motived from sacred source (water, soil, air, etc.)? What makes the moving lips on a rim of the blowhole of the emoting actor so sacred? Without art, science becomes military. Mass media is not art. Any confluence understood a perception.

Mass media is not the social change, its source, that emanates from the heart. Does mass media convey threat or dynamic goal were humanity is concerned, survival for example? On the other hand, Art is a racial media, cutting through temporal and spatial divide between discrete peoples. Necessary evil is contended with, endured. To glory in its - the sloth of passivity; gluttonous over-consumption (serial, so-called 'marathons' of movies and TV show, etc.) - is to succumb to its mechanical nature. As quantum mechanics underlies quantum physics, proof is still found in mathematical physics. A racial media like Art render mass media trivial and temporal. The 'darling', 'Star', no artist. For how useful the smartphone where aerial reception is over-limiting to minimal transfer protocol? How useful TV when ninety percent of humanity alive may never see one?

How privileged the content prvider and their 'artist'! (Their dupes.) Non-racial access pits one mass against another. Mass media a corporate managed divide for centres of nuclear capital. Democratic leadership pseudoanarchist actors responsible for playing media role for their particular masses; one mass media style pitted against the other on false grounds. Mass media aglitter in imperial hue. Motion picture its most entrancing to the human condition, to human senses. Harder work, greater weaponry. Stronger governance, increased use of temporal photography.

One is never good enough for display to the mass. One is to cling on to the merry-go-round  of spectacles of death, though not any spectacle of any death. Even the dead are not good enough for the unattainable standard for the gatekeepers.

Human beings as creatures are drawn to collectivization. Around the fire, at the source of water, beer, and mass media. There, the individual or artist or loner or shaman, anyone non-conforming can be unwelcomed. When collecting around the Natural we might express a common survival. It seems that the artificial means amplify more opaque reasoning. Individuality is the corporeal expression of humanity. The 'lone wold' a valued asset. Is it just to exclude? But what is sovereignty. The many and varied conquerors ravage mother nature, spoiled by abundancy to the point of threatening that bounty while voices from her corporeal ecosphere beg for maturity and express responsibility instead. Mass media keep us from becoming one indigenous race, globalism only multi-mass-media. Performance art emerges as the race realizes it is one. This as physical cosmology replaced by its energy grandparent. The Universe includes us now. Cognitive illusions fade away and we cool ourselves around the drinking hole out by the grove or stand of rock. Wondering how we could have been so vane to replace all of this with the moving image of ourselves.
- - - - - - - - - -
Tags: ebook

March 03 2018

Reposted byzoraxsantieGummiBonBonki-adiwaplue

February 19 2018

Reposted byPaseroVirusTamahltatzeLykouluksterdevloquemol

February 18 2018

Reposted bytchortMilkyJoeSakerosbudasanderer-tobi

January 02 2018

Reposted byKciukWzupiepedosoupanderer-tobiPsaikometafnordtatzewapluecliffordlooquepsyentistgruetzeKik4sambassadorofdumbhemsbeachnoxeoc0ffeewerhamsterPuck152m3rlinMoHoHypothermiaFredFuchsv2pxmieteqreoxrabbit-acschaafmushuzideshowbobgroeschtlm4r1oTehawankaTigerlep856shallowToBierwearebornfreevolldostthor7ocarsten233Saintom
Reposted byspecialneedsKciukWzupieedhellmrpaffrikadelleanderer-tobiPsaikotentacleguymetafnordkasiastrofaLilaLolatatzesofiasnaichpanpancernyregcordvolldostvimesshitonarainbowprincess-carolynpuddinglordthor7otutusmietta-worldkapitandziwnygromoambassadorofdumbLuukkaripencjoJuNeonwerhamsterschaafLadykwacymenxanthWhiteLightgaypreacherkreska-groteskazurawianiaczkaleniwabulakosmatakelslolufocaptainfrogvolldostSaintomhiroshima2Dagarhenstraycatwhovilletwojjedynyniepowtarzalnyadascarsten233gafznuhseriousloxpankamienmemesjaszlarwyastralneliczipotatoefinkreghweirdscenesinsidethegoldminezurawianiaczkaAndrofobiakogsFalloutsoupdudkusevredhairwitchdjahneeexeffect
Reposted bymonotymoteusztowserRekrut-KxmascolaraadremdicofinkreghTabslazuckerentealphabetLilaLolap125nicapicellaXOrangoutanambassadorofdumbprincess-carolynsucznikpanpancernyRedPennyZircongkettoksycznykundelkosmata
Reposted bymakrosmangoepsyentistthor7otatzeoxasFukuron
Reposted bykoniKciukWzupieanderer-tobikhabarakhsfmjeschgethtwins4ever

December 19 2017

Reposted bymushusofiasIgnitionneoraidernaichthor7ockisbackliveattherainbownitroventSakerosschaafxaltatzecrazydunkyMarcoDWkundelaundsTehawankawhovillesofakantePsaikoanderer-tobiAluAluzurawianiaczka
Reposted bymushuSirenensangcool-carlosstonerrTigerlekivlovp125sofiascocciuellalittledisappointmentsotellaselen34gretsiigingergluetohuwabohukokolokoprincess-carolynschaafmentispenetraliaMartwa13nitroventalexandersmith8805kaktuxalzdrowogotujezupacebulowadimplegietropwasnaejaggerBenitawamemesjaszjanuschytrussssssMilcatopyTehawankasofakanteImmortalysLukasYorkdimetylotryptaminamolotovcupcake

December 17 2017

0490 32de
Reposted bySaper300PaseroVirusHypothermiaambassadorofdumbwaplueBiesBerenicelargehamstercolliderfriquepati2k6januschytrusjeyjeyjeyburdeltatamichalkoziolsucznikdatex23wasnaedeinneuerfreundtichgamissmaze

December 06 2017

8513 60d9 350
Reposted byjulannjanuschytrusKrzychulecPvtSpoonmanyaneklamaciekjmemempraMartwa13LabRatOr28

November 21 2017

5517 ba07
Reposted byxalangusiastyjanuschytruskittylitterdivizupacebulowa
5515 a962
Reposted byxalaundspati2k6robintsangusiastykittylitterPaseroViruszupacebulowasmoke11oipojara
5514 90e3 350
Reposted bytatzeEinhornZorroanderer-tobiHypothermiastrzepykokolokobroneksiostran-nudelsalatvogelsucznikgrizzlychickenwujcioBat
Reposted byaundsmushuHypothermiawhovillewapluelaberblaDer-Kellerbisatopati2k6deinneuerfreundTigerlevimesSaper300Psaikoanderer-tobismoke11siknitrusorangeugartetentacleguymoebiusantonimjulannjanuschytrussohryuschmandwerkthor7odarthsadiclokrund2015Schweinekloetensl420sucznikOhSnaplubisztosukoIgnitionzupacebulowapierniczekferiachvogelraven
Reposted bymushuEinhornZorropati2k6anderer-tobi
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!