Paul Sharits (1943-1993)

1. <--  9’ -->      PINK INTERFACE POSTULATES

  7’                   re: POSTULATE 2.

   <--  29’ -->     A, D contain more certainty of being observed as “pale”

2. <--  9’ -->       B, C contain regular “holes” (relatively dark tones)

   7’                  (an “ironic balance” is the subject of the

   <--  26’ -->     work; the balences are in

3. <-- 9’ -->       by the arrangement of

    7’                 A, B, C ,D. an “ironic” sort

   <-- 27 -->l       of balance can directly

4. <-- 9’ -->       reveal the “nature of

    7’                 film” because there

    <-- 24’ -->     are fraud-like [inso-

5. <-- 9’ -->       much as they                     

    7’                 exaggerate the light/mo

    <-- 25’ -->      light action of the natural shutter movement].

                        The question is: to

                        what degree is “the artist” allowed to

                        make decisions which

                        amplify or diminish

                        the natural functions of the system(s) being

                        analyzed? To what

                        degree can modulation

                        be regarded  as

                        significant if not

                        through parody of

                        “ parody” (ie “cinema”)?