Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 15:30:02 +0200 (EET DST) From: Vadim Verenits <grimnes-AT-physic.ut.ee> Subject: Re: Deleuze and Redemption - or flight. That should mean the death of author(that is actually Derrida`s idea) both with advent new type of narrative, narrative that constantly repeats itself through the infinite row of iterations,new mythology,mythology of part-instead of whole, and self-similarity.That is a mere source of "shizoanalysis", that becomes more and more influental within our "smooth"space.Dare I call it fractal? But what i want to do is to underline the similarity of modern and s.c " postmodern discources", the aspect of their unlimited "semiosis", semiosis with no limits, when supernatural "machinery of capitalism"produces a huge number of meanings of simple *pure things*:that is why Roland Barthes prophecies are seemed to be fulfied.Just look around and see that everything we deal with is a result of reactions between two agenda of modern(*postmodern*)physics :SIMULATION and MYTHOLOGIZATION(i would neglect the film narrative for some particular reasons, because until now we have had a brilliant examplples of re-mythologization of contemprorary thought by the means of s.c "minor art", such as Lynch and von Trier films ; Welsh and "acid literature", outburst of cyberpunck aestetics and s.o,it is a bad taste ).But it seems to be a good idea to draw parallels between nowdays spreading "nomadic" discourse and the trend of s.c."decadents" at the end of XIX century(and even early;thus even de Sade and Lotreamont can be regarded as decadents, prophets of "dark side of our life", though i prefer to refer to Artaud as the most outstanding example of shizophrenic discourse in "pre-post-modern ages" If you can link this premise with the concept of "bloody ritual of narrative`s sacrification" from one side and the notion of fractals from other side , please send comments or own ideas. On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Daniel Haines wrote: > Anthony Beck wrote: > > > > Dan, > > You imply that in the film medium narrative may be sacrificed to action. I > > think this is barbaric - theme, significance, pirtable meaning, depends > > arguably upon narrative. there may be some limits to the portability of > > rhizomes. > > this wasn't exactly what i meant! > > i wasn't praising for "action" over "narrative" but only trying to point > out what a radical break in the narrative action sequences involving > special effects require - an asignifying break, a rupture, they have no > relationship to the narrative as such but bring into play a whole other > range of affects that have no place in a conventional narrative - in > short, they introduce the deluge, the inhuman... > > i'm not really talking about rhizomes as such - what I was trying to > say (perhaps not very clearly) was that while moving images/sequences of > images have been used in cinema mainly to create narrative structures > that take a model of narrative based on writing, and have continued a > form of narrative specific to writing, developed through writing (as > opposed to narrative in oral traditions, for example,which operates > differently, has different functions) this isn't the only way of using > cinema/film. Film doesn't have to reproduce that kind of narrative, or > any kind of narrative - it can operate through rupture and break - the > cut. > > from this kind of thinking i was speculating that perhaps it misses the > point to criticise films by placing them in the relation of "lack" to > the conventions of literary narrative structuring (if you'll excuse such > an awkward phrase!) - after all, who said film has to work this way? why > do we expect a film to "tell us a story" - with a beginning, middle, and > end? > > in terms of d&g this seems to me absolutely crucial - follow the line, > the rupture, the asignifying - whatever opens a plateau populated by > intensities, affects.... i'm not suggesting that this question has any > pat answer, but i think it's important to ask -why do we expect a > narrative from film, and what/who does our expection > benefit/reinforce/compromise? > > > I think this is barbaric - theme, significance, pirtable meaning, depends > > arguably upon narrative. > > i don't have a problem with being "barbaric" (although I am not attached > particularly to this idea - it holds a kind of romanticism that is > essentially narcisism) - who were the barbarians if not the peoples who > exerted a "nomadic" influence over the established powers they > confronted? don't we need to get a bit "barbaric" to escape the > "decadence" of the modern west? > > > there may be some limits to the portability of rhizomes. > > if you mean that under some conditions rhizomatic connectivity will > always be channelled into existing power structures and therefore serve > only to strengthen the hold of that particular strata, that some > systems will ALWAYS maintain equilibrium - then i wonder what justifies > thast assumption? in what way is it more valid than the opposite > assumption? > > or if you mean the applicability of the 'concept' of a rhizome - isn't > it (in a sense) a way of understanding that everything is an event, of > understannding everything as an event, and as such has unlimited > "portability"? > > ?? > > dan h. > > > -- > http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/chupacabras/48/ > http://www.tw2.com/staff/daniel/ > > Ware ware Karate-do o shugyo surumonowa, > Tsuneni bushido seishin o wasurezu, > Wa to nin o motte nashi, > Soshite tsutomereba kanarazu tasu. > > We who study Karate-do, > Should never forget the spirit of the samurai, > With peace, perseverance and hard work, > We will reach our goal without failure. >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005