Date: Fri, 7 Apr 95 09:19:39 EDT
From: ma-AT-dsd.camb.inmet.com (Malgosia Askanas)
Subject: Re:  C1, ch 2


Melissa wrote:

> Deleuze asserts that the film frame is analogous to an "informational"
> system, whose pararmeters are saturation/rarefecation, rather than a
> linguistic one (whose parameters would be - ? signifier and signified?). He
> then goes on to say, counter-intuitively, that it is by virtue of these
> parameters that we can say that the frame is "readable" rather than simply
> "visible".  [...]  What it seems to be saying here is that the frame, 
> as "dividual", is a complex and heterogenous system that does not simply 
> give itself over all of a piece to the eye, but that a greater or lesser 
> number of independent variables need to be tracked simultaneously.

How do you interpret the word "need" here?  Why does anything _need_ to be
tracked at all?  Can one explain this without bringing in some kind 
of communication- or expression-theory of art?

I have analogous questions about some other claims of Ch2.  On p.15:
"... to avoid falling into an empty aestheticism they [the extraordinary 
points of view] must be explained, they must be revealed as normal and
regular".  What kind of categories here are "empty aestheticism" and
the "must"?  On p.17: "Deframings which are not `pragmatically'
justified refer to precisely this second aspect [opening out onto a
whole] as their raison d'etre."  What kind of category is this
"referring to something as one's raison d'etre"?   On p.19: 
"Take a fixed shot where the characters move: they modify their 
respective positions in a framed set; but this modification would be 
completely arbitrary if it did not also express something in the course
 of changing..."  What kind of a category is this "arbitrary"?  


- malgosia 


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

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