Message-ID: <alpine.NEB.2.00.1103231715140.12998@panix3.panix.com>
From: Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com>
To: Cyb <cybermind@listserv.wvu.edu>, Wryting-L <WRYTING-L@listserv.wvu.edu>
Subject: Planetary
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 17:17:19 -0400 (EDT)
Planetary videos: http://www.alansondheim.org/planetary1.mov http://www.alansondheim.org/planetary2.mov production stills: http://www.alansondheim.org/planetary1.jpg http://www.alansondheim.org/planetary2.jpg http://www.alansondheim.org/planetary3.jpg Movements are drawn from reprogrammed motion capture equipment. Planetary1 has no 'stars' to establish scale; these could be sub-atomic particle clouds for all we know, or a throwback to the Rutherford atom. Planetary2 sets 'stars'; the image is reminiscent of NASA footage, with one important exception: the planets, not the stars, twinkle. However, if you imagine the view from a spacecraft, the planetary twinkle indicates fast rotation, and the stars glow more or less evenly. If this is 'read as' planetary, certainly indexical; if mocap, it's ikonic (?); and if particle clouds, symbolic (?). But these categories are blurred here; virtuality doesn't help (especially when the virtual implies inscription and/or an imaginary). (Come to think of it, virtuality might not imply an imaginary - this is also blurred. In any case they're just animations - something NASA does best.)
