On the distinctions between performative (interactive) and reflexive - and
thinking back to Austin at the same time - a performative film/video would
have to imply a certain self-reference to its performance - to how it is to
be taken, to what kind of filmic/video act it is, to how it is acting in
filming/recording and showing - and therefore, to that extent, it would
have to be reflexive. The distinction becomes blurred because the
performative (and interactive) have to be parasitic on the reflexive.
(Incidentally
is the fiction/non-fiction divide a performative distinction?).
A problem with applying a term like performative from speech act theory to
film/video theory is the more or less non-dialogic character of film and the
delay between filming and showing. Does interactivity in this discussion
imply interactivity with those filmed, not those watching the film?
Is performative a term more likely to be applied to the showing? What about
the interactive news vision of Arafat and Rabin shaking hands for the
cameras? Who is performing this
declaration? The politicians, their minders, the news media, the doco maker
who uses the shot 10 years later? For whom and for what? Where is the
interactivity? Different
media, different mechanics, different communicative functions, different
terminological distinctions. Film, video, speech, print, all different. How
and to what extent do the distinctions in media - 35mm, 16, 8, video,
digital - condition performative uses?
Ross
|