Michael,
<<This reply IS meant to be onlist, I'll pull my socks up
asap>>
When I suggested that Souriau's scheme was fifty years old,
it was only to suggest that it should be treated with
caution. I'm particularly interested in Bazin's essay on
Photography, which I think is fantastic, but I continually
have to remind myself that the media were very different in
the fifties, and that his ideas need to be treated in this
light. The same, I think, should be said for Souriau,
Kracuaer, Pasolini and others. I say caution, but not
denial or dismissal, since part of my own research is to
take such theories and see how they can be used to
understand photography and film since their writing.
Another good example of this would be Benjamin. I, like
others, was profoundly affected by his work on art and
mechanical reproduction (just look at how many articles
'ape' his title), but my task is to understand how it is
affected by more recent philosophy. I'm just not sure (from
the original vagueness of the categories) how Souriau's
categories can seem so clearly drawn when related to
current media/film trends which consistently blur the
boundraies of accepted notions of form, diegesis and
reception.
My own view is Deleuze/Bergsonian, in that the object and
subject are unnaturally separated in critical studies. This
does not mean that such critical studies are worthless,
just that they often do not take into account a perception
in which object and subject have a complex and subtle
relationship. I do find that structuralist accounts,
and particular psychoanalysis, take perception and
memory as a given, or without considering other
metaphysical or philosophical approaches. Like Souriau's
and any other theory, Deleuze/Bergson should also be
treated with caution: There are *many* reasons to be
careful when dealing with both Deleuze and Bergson.
>From this point of view then, I'm not sure there could be
such a thing as a filmic/afilmic relationship, except in
critical concepts. Were does one draw the line, in popular
culture now so dominated by media?
Are Souriau's categories based on a phenomenology of
negation? Maybe you or others can clarify. It seems to me
that the categories might be, since in order for one
category to exist (afilmic reality), it needs to be
different from another (filmic reality). From a Deleuzean
point of view this is impossible, since he sees 'difference
from' as a quality of addition rather than one of
abstraction. Also, Bergson saw negation as problematic
because it cause an unnatural separation based on animosity
and stifles art. Art flows from the positive dialectic. An
example of this might be avant-garde cinema, which could be
seen to blur the boundaries between filmic and afilmic
reality in order to create art.
I've not experienced Souriau, so it goes to the top of my
reading list.
Finally, I agree about the misunderstanding of terms, as
its a point I made a few weeks ago. I will try to be more
clear.
----------------------
Damian Peter Sutton
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
