In a message dated 10/22/00 7:34:10 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< That a filmmaker reached into the pool and pulled out something that

in filmmaking terms can be described as Montage, and a poet reached in and

pulled out something that he described as ideogrammtic method is not a

shock, >>

My point exactly.  (excuse my selective presentation of your post. I don't
mean to misrepresent, I just want to interrupt mid-sentence)  One might as
well say that Pound was breathing in the technology of film
projection/viewing and the illusion of movement through persistence of
vision, in which the retina retains the still frame it saw for 1/48th of a
second, carries a fading vestige of that still frame over the 1/48th sec. of
closed shutter darkness, so that it can merge with the next frame which
appears for it's own 1/48th of a sec., and on and on, 24 times each second,
imparting an illusion of movement, continuity of appearance, what we think of
as the 'move -ies'.  It is the slight difference between adjacent frames that
creates the illusion - which by definition exists only in the nervous system
of the viewer, not unlike EP's more complicated ideogrammic juxtapositions
creates in his readers the web(s)of meanings and resonances that move the
members of this list.  Yes, one COULD say this, but nothing would emerge that
illuminates either the technology or the poet.  Best, Jay Anania