Deze website maakt gebruik van Cookies.

An all-ana­log pro­gram around the his­to­ries and tra­di­ti­ons of the flic­ker film’, from its ori­gins in the 1960s up until today, high­ligh­ting some les­ser shown key works. 

While the occur­ren­ce of flic­ker on the screen had always been thought of as an unwan­ted dis­trac­ti­on, the flic­ker gen­re explo­res this phe­no­me­non, indi­ge­nous to the light-time medi­um of cine­ma, con­si­de­ring the abso­lu­te­ly fun­da­men­tal ele­ments of film and the mecha­nis­ms of its ope­ra­ti­ons. Taking its cue from the shut­ter and the inter­mit­tent move­ment of came­ra and pro­jec­tor acting upon the strip of sepa­ra­te fra­mes, the flic­ker film in its fas­hi­on emp­ha­si­zes the natu­re of the sepa­ra­te fra­mes, the rapid move­ment of the fra­mes, and through ana­lo­gy and by way of hyper­bo­le, the flic­ker effect of the shut­ter. (Regina Cornwell)

Cinema is not move­ment. This is the first thing. Cinema is not move­ment. Cinema is a pro­jec­ti­on of stills – which means ima­ges which do not move – in a very quick rhythm. And you can give the illu­si­on of move­ment, of cour­se, but this is a spe­ci­al case, and the film was inven­ted ori­gi­nal­ly for this spe­ci­al case… Where is, then, the arti­cu­la­ti­on of cine­ma? Eisenstein, for example, said it’s the col­li­si­on of two shots. But it’s very stran­ge that nobo­dy ever said that it’s not bet­ween shots but bet­ween fra­mes.” (Peter Kubelka)

Program: Asel Bakchakova (Atelier OFFoff)

In col­la­bo­ra­ti­on with EYE Film Museum Amsterdam in the con­text of their exhi­bi­ti­on and pro­gram series Underground: American Avant-Garde Film in the 1960s (October 2024 — 5 January 2025)


Victor Grauer

Archangel

US • 1966 • 9' • colour & b&w • 16mm

This film pre­sents a series of flic­ke­ring fra­mes of pri­ma­ry colors to gro­aning tape manipulations. 

Pure light ener­gy, relea­sed by the split­ting of the film atom.” (Victor Grauer)

Angel Eyes, which I made in 1965, was pro­ba­bly the first color flic­ker film ever! However, I rea­li­zed that this appro­ach had the poten­ti­al to be much more powerful and deci­ded to make ano­ther with stron­ger stro­bing effects (don’t for­get, the stro­be light was still pret­ty much unknown at that time). The new film, Archangel was made in 1966 and shown at the Filmmaker’s Cinematheque and, a bit later the same year, at the New York Film Festival (on the same pro­gram as Tony Conrad’s The Flicker).” (Victor Grauer)

Though I have wor­ked exten­si­ve­ly in various media, from music to poe­try to film to per­for­man­ce to mul­ti­me­dia and instal­la­ti­on art, the­re is a sin­gle thread that runs through most of my cre­a­ti­ve work: I am fas­ci­na­ted by the poten­ti­al of light and sound to pro­du­ce sheer magic.” (Victor Grauer)

Paul Sharits

Shutter Interface

US • 1975 • 24' • colour • 16mm • 2 x 16mm

We pre­sent the two-screen ver­si­on of Shutter Interface, with two over­lap­ping film loops that cycle through various colour per­muta­ti­ons, cre­a­ting a per­cus­si­ve composition.

The cen­tral idea was to cre­a­te a metap­hor of the basic inter­mit­ten­cy mecha­nism of cine­ma: the shut­ter. If one slows down a pro­jec­tor, one obser­ves a flic­ker’; this flic­ke­ring reveals the rota­ting shut­ter acti­vi­ty of the sys­tem. Instead of slo­wing down a pro­jec­tor, one can metap­ho­ri­cally sug­gest the fra­me-by-fra­me struc­tu­re of film (which is what neces­si­ta­tes a shut­ter bla­de mecha­nism) by dif­fe­ren­ti­a­ting each fra­me of the film by radi­cal shifts in value or hue; this metap­hor was a gui­ding prin­ci­ple in my work in the 1960’s, in my so-cal­l­ed color flic­ker films’. I dis­co­ver­ed, two years ago, that I could heigh­ten this metap­hor by par­ti­al­ly over­lap­ping two screens of rela­ted but dif­fe­rent flic­ker foot­a­ge’.” (Paul Sharits)

For Shutter Interface, I wan­ted a sound rhythm and a visu­al rhythm that would have some­thing to do with high-ampli­tu­de alp­ha (brain) waves. I think tha­t’s why it’s such a pleasant film. I did some bio­feed­back to lis­ten to the sound of my alp­ha rhythm and I tried to approxi­ma­te it in the pie­ce. I wan­ted that sound to fit with the flic­ker and it does exact­ly. Every series of fra­mes of colour, which are each from two to eight fra­mes long, is sepa­ra­ted by one black fra­me and the sound is in direct cor­res­pon­den­ce to tho­se black fra­mes. The black fra­mes are like litt­le punc­tu­a­ti­on points.” (Paul Sharits)

People have not devel­o­ped a way of reac­ting to see­ing a film in the same way that they would react to, say, a Rothko after all the­se years of abstract pain­ting.” (Paul Sharits)

John Cavanaugh

Blink (Fluxfilm no. 5)

US • 1966 • 2' • b&w • 16mm

Flicker: White and black alter­na­ting fra­mes.” (George Maciunas)

The Fluxfilm antho­lo­gy is an example of a col­lec­ti­ve work pro­du­ced by Fluxus, much like their musi­cal recor­ding or publi­ca­ti­ons. The artist and foun­ding mem­ber of Fluxus, George Maciunas, began gathering this series of 37 films as ear­ly as 1966. With a few excep­ti­ons, the artists who took part were not known as filmmakers.

At the age of 18, John Cavanaugh made flux­film #5, Blink, decla­ring that cine­ma is yoga of get­ting orga­ni­zed the pat­terns of direct ener­gy.” According to Jonas Mekas, Cavanaugh’s film­ma­king appro­ach see­med one of the most pro­mo­sing of the New York avant-gar­de at the end of the 1960’s, but nothing is left of it today. Cavanaugh wit­hdrew all his films from Anthology Film Archives at a time in his life when, due to extre­me LSD expe­rien­ces, he sank into a peri­od of insa­ni­ty during which he was insti­tu­ti­o­na­li­zed for seve­r­al years. 

Fluxfilm #5 results from a mini­mal pro­cess known as flic­ker and built on the basic ele­ments of cine­ma: sin­gle fra­mes, light and dark­ness. Alternating black and whi­te fra­mes pro­du­ce a stro­be effect throug­hout the film. With this sim­ple, bina­ry pro­cess, John Cavanaugh reveals the essen­ce of cine­ma: its fra­me rate, the fre­quen­cy at which the film illu­si­on is cre­a­ted. Fluxfilm #5 can be com­pa­red to Tony Conrad’s film, The Flicker, made the same year. In Tony Conrad’s more demon­stra­ti­ve film, the inter­mit­ten­ce cre­a­tes an illu­si­on of con­ti­nui­ty as a psy­cho­p­hy­si­o­lo­gi­cal per­cep­tu­al expe­ri­ment. Cavanaugh’s film on the other hand omits all didac­tic inten­ti­ons. This film can also be com­pa­red to Yoko Ono’s Eye Blink (flux­films #9 and #15), with the dif­fe­ren­ce that the lat­ter’s sta­te­ment is liter­al­ly accom­plis­hed yet slo­wed down, whi­le the sub­ject of Cavanaugh’s film is none other than the rhythmic blin­king of mecha­ni­cal’ eye­lids. On the one hand is Eye Blink, the cau­se, and on the other hand the visu­al result, Blink, pro­du­ced by the repe­ti­ti­on of this sim­ple expe­rien­ce. Where Ono’s film plays on stret­ching the obser­va­ti­on of time, Cavanaugh’s ana­ly­zes real time, sli­cing it up with a mecha­ni­cal shut­ter. (Maeva Aubert, Re:Voir booklet)

Jeff Weber

Untitled (Neural Network, nn_oxb_1)

DE • 2021 • 1' • b&w • 35mm • 1.440 frames

The 1,440-frame-long film has been made with a sco­re gene­ra­ted by an arti­fi­ci­al neu­ral net­work and coded in Python. The film explo­res the idea of an exter­na­li­za­ti­on of the cog­ni­ti­ve instan­ce that occurs through the advent of arti­fi­ci­al intel­li­gen­ce, and the recur­si­ve prin­ci­ples it relies on: through the flic­ker, the work reso­na­tes and inter­fe­res with the very sys­tem that ini­ti­al­ly has con­sti­tu­ted the model for the struc­tu­re applied on it: the human body and its ner­vous system. 

Jeff Weber cur­rent­ly holds a research fel­lows­hip (20242026) at the Royal Academy of Fine Arts Antwerp, Belgium. 

Jeff Weber

Sequences I-IV

DE • 2021 • 1' • b&w • 35mm • 4 x 264 frames

SEQUENCES (I), 2021, 11 sec, 35mm, silent
SEQUENCES (II), 2021, 11 sec, 35mm, silent
SEQUENCES (III), 2021, 11 sec, 35mm, silent
SEQUENCES (IV), 2021, 11 sec, 35mm, silent 

These short films are built upon the num­ber of grey tones deter­mi­ned by the dyna­mic ran­ge of the film print stock used, and con­ver­ted into nume­ric valu­es bet­ween 1 and 6. These then con­sti­tu­te an ini­ti­al sequen­ce of 24 fra­mes, that is sub­se­quent­ly alte­red and ite­ra­ted through by a spe­ci­fic algo­rithm and a pre-deter­­mi­­ned method – a kind of wea­ving together of nume­ric values.

Steve Cossman

TUSSLEMUSCLE

US • 2007 • 5' • colour • 16mm

Steve Cossman is foun­der and direc­tor of Mono No Aware lab in New York. HisTusslemuscle plays on the term tus­sie-mus­sie, known as the lan­gu­a­ge of flo­wers and their sym­bo­lism. The film was made by splicing together 7,000 fra­mes from child­ren’s view-mas­ters – plas­tic wheels with 14 small ima­ges – which Cossman assem­b­led with transpa­rent tape, one by one, onto 16mm film. The sound­track com­po­sed by San Francisco-based artist Jacob Long (under the name Earthen Sea) pro­vi­des a vio­lent coun­ter­point to the spring-the­med ima­ges. The mon­ta­ge is based on basic musi­cal move­ments that mark the rhythm with alter­na­ting per­cus­si­on and repe­ti­ti­on (right, left, right). right, right / left, right, left, left) and the ine­vi­ta­ble pau­ses that sup­press the sen­sa­ti­on of cres­cen­do. With the idea of​sustai­ning a musi­cal note, Cossman repe­ats the same fra­me, some­ti­mes up to a hund­red times, befo­re returning to the nor­mal caden­ce of the rhythm. Despite the speed of the mon­ta­ge, the tex­tu­re of the glue, the tape, and the fra­gi­li­ty of the fra­me are reve­a­led as part of the natu­re port­ray­ed. (Mónica Savirón)

In 2001, I dis­co­ver­ed that the view-mas­ter reel cells are in fact 16 mm wide with sin­gle per­fo­ra­ti­ons. I came across a few reels that had been water dama­ged and the whi­te cardstock hol­ding them in pla­ce had peeled back expo­sing the fra­mes. I always thought it would be inte­res­ting to cre­a­te a film enti­re­ly of the­se litt­le ima­ges, so when I had the time and means I began col­lec­ting flo­wer the­med reels. I gat­he­red reels for the gre­a­ter part of three years to amass enough fra­mes to cre­a­te the 5 minu­te pie­ce and spent 2 years assem­bling. After the fra­mes were extrac­ted from each reel, I would iden­ti­fy the simi­lar­ly ima­ged cells and pla­ce them into enve­lo­pes. On the front of each enve­lo­pe I typed a few notes about the ima­ge and made a tiny 2.5” X 3” copy of the ima­ge as to iden­ti­fy what was insi­de. These enve­lo­pes were pin­ned to the wall as a means of orga­ni­za­ti­on and a way to sto­ry­board the pie­ce.” (Steve Cossman)

Shutter

Shutter Interface © The Film-Makers' Cooperative, New York

Jeff weber sequence III

Sequences III © Jeff Weber

Projection Instructions page 0001

Shutter Interface © The Film-Makers' Cooperative, New York

Snapinsta app 450839217 972536794609807 8069852383680362403 n 1080

Untitled (Neural Network, nn_oxb_1) © Jeff Weber

Victor Grauer

Archangel

US • 1966 • 9' • colour & b&w • 16mm

Paul Sharits

Shutter Interface

US • 1975 • 24' • colour • 16mm • 2 x 16mm

John Cavanaugh

Blink (Fluxfilm no. 5)

US • 1966 • 2' • b&w • 16mm

Jeff Weber

Untitled (Neural Network, nn_oxb_1)

DE • 2021 • 1' • b&w • 35mm • 1.440 frames

Jeff Weber

Sequences I-IV

DE • 2021 • 1' • b&w • 35mm • 4 x 264 frames

Steve Cossman

TUSSLEMUSCLE

US • 2007 • 5' • colour • 16mm