When considering “La Spirale”, we assumed it meant spiral. More specifically, I envisioned a spiral that comes to a tip for the end (sort of like a coned spiral on either end). Therefore it had its limit and structure through the style of spiral. When then taking into thought the idea of our question 2 about the last lines of the poem “Moreover, they are not deformed by style,/ That fire that eats what it illuminates.” If we had read those lines first, would you view the poem differently? How would you frame it? And, how would it integrate with the examples differently? So, in other words, how would a different point of entry affect your framing of the poem in its entire dynamic form?
I decided to try to depict my vision. I used Google’s SketchUp program, which is freeware, in order to create a 3D animation which would explore the spiral [frame] from both angles. It definitely isn’t perfect, but I feel it is a great break thought for me in only 3 hours. I felt significantly more comfortable with this program after using it. Its simplicity in use and free nature make it a very appealing program. I first made two separate animations, and then using iMovie, spliced the clips and overlaid a soundtrack which I felt well accompanied the insight given by watching the POAM. In the future, Dmitri and I plan to overlay our voices over the clip guiding/navigating the ‘experiencer’ through the multitude of frames and the conical helix.
To explore this question in relation to my vision of the tapered spiral, we decided to form a visual representation and record first an orbit of the tapered spiral. Then we would compare that to a spiral that came to its smallest cycle in the middle, and its orbit. It is interesting in comparison when you view both orbits and whenever the spiral is viewed from a top view or bottom view they seem quite similar; similar enough to consider that they were the same figure, when in all actuality they are completely different. When reading the poem, the point of entry of the poem will affect how one views the rest of the poem and the individual lines that are comprehended. In its style and structure it builds up to an overall understanding of the meaning of the poem with previous notions of understanding by individual lines have been misunderstood. à So, it again raises this question of if the point of entry effects your framing of a POAM or poem as well. When in practice this visual representation evidently justifies that a difference in point of entry will account for a difference in framing. When further exploring the spirals, the thought of framing affecting the point of entry also came into mind. If given a specific frame, are you then following the intentions of the maker of that product? Moreover, is that frame the view from only that direction or does changing your angle of viewing direction within the frame (such as shown with the spirals) affect the points of entry you have for exploration of thought provoked by the product of an act of making? It seems as if there is a reciprocal question and answer set forth when analyzing this idea. There definitely is a relationship between the interaction of framing and point of entry within a POAM. Did the maker intend for an exact frame, or is the entirety of the images in a frame open for perception?
Also noteworthy is the ideas of lack of interaction within the poem, “Style”, and its representation in the coned spiral video created and how in both views of spirals they are never fully connected in the middle. The portrayal of this lack of interaction is obvious, whereas we intended for this representation, was that also the intention of Nemerov? In fact, we call them POAMS (Products Of Acts of Making), are all products made with specific intentions?
Where could we apply these ideas and this model in other areas of life?
Back to this ‘bioframe’ however, we can see that any knowledge of the subject of them poem influence our framing of its meaning. For instance, any specific word in the poem elicits a certain feeling (which is completely individual and UNIQUE for every person), and thus, can influence the context of the poem. If I have certain emotions and/or memories associated with the Holy Ghost, then I will think of it [the poem as a whole, as well as the metaphor] differently and it will alter the meaning/reaction I have to the poem. Any new information alters the perception of the poem. Even reading about the author changes things. We are college students, and are taught to make connections between strands of information, whether they are perpendicular or whether they are parallel and have no implicit intersection -- Queue imagination and connections via falsity.
1 comment:
Admirable intentions. Splendid analysis for setting up further important inquiries!
Regarding alternate and flexible entry points, once an entry point is somehow determined,
an entry point sets up initial conditions of an encounter with a print poam. What is first encountered establishes some of what becomes expected; there is an imprint of first encounter that marks the experience, preps perception according to initial content, and what has already been learned about roles of the beginning.
Much encouragement for processing a print poam as a whole comes from an apparent fact of the print poam existing on a single, the same plane --the spatial placement exerts influence, for those who are able to see the print poam, even before reading begins;
initial views of the print poam on the same page perhaps emphasizes the wholeness of the poam
but what if the parts were not on the same plane?
--something that 3D models can help investigate.
Imagine the fascinating complexities of entry points and consequences of entering structures --neighborhoods-- of super cluster geometries.
Are you familiar with the landscape sculpture of Robert Smithson, specifically: are you familiar with his Spiral Jetty?
Post a Comment