Paul Sharits (1943-1993)

1. <---9’--->

A B C D

<---7’--->

<------29’------>

2. <----9’--->

<---7’--->

<------26’------>

3. <----9’--->

<---7’--->

<------27’------>

4. <----9’--->

<---7’--->

<------24’------>

5. <----9’--->

<---7’--->

<------25’------>

PINK INTERFACE POSTULATES

re:POSTULATE 2.

A, D contain more certainty of being showed as “pale” B, C contain regular –holes- (relatively dark tones)

(an “ironic balance” is the subject of the work; the balances are in by the arrangement of A, B, C, D. an “ironic” sort of balance can directly reveal the “nature of film” became them  are fraud-like [in so-much as they exaggerate the light/mo 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” (i.e. “cinema”)?