Date: Wed, 12 Apr 1995 00:41:31 +1000
From: mmcmahon-AT-extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (Melissa McMahon)
Subject: Re:  C1, ch 2


from....who was it? 9/4/95
>> I apologise to both mani and malgosia for getting their names mixed
>>up...yeah.
>> They themselves are naturally never mixed up in my mind.
>
>Oh, does it have to be naturally never?  Couldn't we keep the option
>just a tad open?  It could be fun to be mixed up with Mani in Melissa's mind.

Ok, sometimes, unnaturally....

>Well, I now wonder whether "readability" is in fact, for Deleuze, a property
>specifically of the film image, or whether _all_ images are both
>visible and readable.  "[...] the frame teaches us that the image is
>not just given to be seen" (p. 12).  The image, period.  To go back
>to an old Louis provocation, the pattern made by waves on the shore
>would also be both visible and legible.

The question is still in what ways natural perception is different from
film perception, even if they have in common the trait of readability ie.
heterogeneity. The camera would seem here to be a crucial distinguishing
feature, it's 'eye' having a different sort of perception. I'm still
thinking about your post on the camera, at this stage I can only think (I'm
such an apologist!) that the camera, qua _eye_ (rather than klunky
machine), sort of _is_ the film anyway, if we think of eyes as sort of
'points en survol', 'points flying over' the field, a virtual scan
constituting the field rather than remaining fixed at one edge of the
field... I think the role of the camera (and its difference to the human
eye) becomes clearer as the book goes on...

- Melissa






     --- from list seminar-10-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------