Response to A System of Temporary Framing, Shifting Frames

A visual representation to Proforker's blog post "A System of Temporary Framing, Shifting Frames" can be seen in Deepak Mangla's blog. We created this spiral representation to show shifting perceptions and interpretations of ideas or concepts by the confusion when looking at a spiral from different angles. Depending on the point of entry to the surface, perceptions are skewed and shifted and interpretation of the spiral temporarily has new meaning. View this representation at http://d340.blogspot.com/2008/03/la-spirale.html .

* When considering “La Spirale”, we assumed it meant spiral. More specifically, Deepak 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?

To explore this question in relation to Deepak’s 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?