Taylor Rients Line Describing a Cone Response Week 11
When Anthony McCall begins to describe his term “Line Describing A Cone” I became instantly confused: “Line Describing A Cone is what I term a solid light film. It deals with the projected light beam itself, rather than treating the light beam as a mere carrier of coded information, which is decoded when it strikes a flat surface” (McCall, 61). This definition could genuinely not be more vague. Is he arguing that the light is the film/art and the story that the light is carrying is irrelevant? As in: the medium of light should be the only thing taken into consideration...But isn’t light just a carrier of information anyway? (In terms of a film, I guess).
I feel as though this line is important (when he was describing this film) but am unsure with what McCall is trying to depict: “the space is real not referential; the time is real, not referential” (62). When trying to actually break this down: objects are where they are based upon what other objects are around them (what reference points are around them) and time is looked at based upon the present, usually (and referred to against the past or future). However McCall describes this as a primary experience but what I just tried to breakdown above sounds secondary to me...when you’re worrying too much about external factors and not being in the moment.
Comments
Post a Comment