pixels as peeps

I asked my class last week why carburetors could not be made out of pigeons. You see it follows that if a computer could be made out of any collection of objects that maintain state (position, color, size, weight, etc.) then why can’t things in the real world be assembled with the same kind of abandon. Trouble is that carburetors are more taxi that umbrella, but that’s another story.

Let’s say for a minute that you devise a method for storing matrices of data and routines as pixels in a frame. Then say that those frames of pixels are being assembled into a sequence, and that you have some way to print them out with a film scanner. Now you’ve encoded a whole bunch of information on the frames, and you’re going to put it in a medium for playing.

Now the relationship between the pixels is completely arbitrary: it may or may not make a comprehendible image when played back through a physically compatible medium. It’s just as mysterious as the peeps that are being assembled to make Wordstar, or a picture of a penguin. in fact it’s equivalent.

But doesn’t this make the ultimate formal film? What would Brakhage say about it? Or Duchamp?

More questions:

A. Separate observation
Digital files are analogous to a film reel in that they require a device of some kind for playback. The work, the filmes, the thing itself cannot be experienced as intended without benefit of the playback device.

B. Those playback devices will never be calibrated precisely to standard, so no two experiences will be the same. Is this important?