Hi Gerry, My apologies. Critical distance wouldn't be my model for this either. I might head more toward Baudrillard's anagrammatical notions or Mondzain's discussion of image, icon, and economy. It was because you wrote "I love good cinema or animation as much as the next person but we need to distance ourselves enough" that I thought you were talking about distance, especially due to your terms like radical and complicitous.
Tom On 06/02/10 5:28 PM, "Gerry Coulter" <gcoul...@ubishops.ca> wrote: Excellent question -- first thing I suggest is toss the politcs overboard. I do not expect images of any kind to contribute to radical theory. I'm hopeful that image theory and art curation arent at the same level of promotion. The term "radical critical distance" is yours, not mine. To me it is a term that sounds very contradictory given the recent history of theory. Otherwise your posting is appreciated for proving my point about the discussion so far. My best, Gerry ________________________________________ From: empyre-boun...@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au [empyre-boun...@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of Thomas LaMarre, Prof. [thomas.lama...@mcgill.ca] Sent: February 6, 2010 5:18 PM To: soft_skinned_space Subject: Re: [-empyre-] animetic machines Gerry, In light of prior discussion on animation, labour activism, new social movements, and neoliberalism, I am curious to know what you think radical criticism is (versus promotional or complicitous). And how is it that a non-degraded image (sorry, so far there is no positive term in play) contributes to radical criticism? I am also surprised that you think prior discussion had no critical 'distance' from the image. in what way does speaking of 'degraded images' introduce radical critical distance? From what, for what, and for whom? Cheers, Tom On 2/6/10 2:47 PM, "Gerry Coulter" <gcoul...@ubishops.ca> wrote: Tim, et. al. While Tim's post inspired my thought it was a reflection on the list to date. So far i see a good deal of celebration by sincere academics who command an interesting and thoughtful discourse but it all seems rather complicitous. Is this area more like art criticism than i had suspected? More a part of the promotional culture than a radical culture? (By radical I am not referring to "critical theory" but to a kind of theory steeped in challenge). So far it reminds me also of the literature on gaming. Now, what Tim refers to as a "complexified" image I am referring to as a degraded image. I love good cinema or animation as much as the next person but we need to distance ourselves enough to admit that adding colour to the image and then sound and then all the rest of it does not add to the image, rather it has all detracted from it. Garbage piles are complex assortments it doesn't mean that all we can do is celebrate their complexity, diversity etc. my best, Gerry ________________________________________ From: empyre-boun...@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au [empyre-boun...@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of Timothy Murray [t...@cornell.edu] Sent: February 6, 2010 11:37 AM To: soft_skinned_space Subject: Re: [-empyre-] animetic machines >Gerry, Perhaps I could have been more nuanced by indicating that I was referring to as a somewhat limiting focus of 70-80s film theory on the conventions of "continuity"-- I would include my own work in this critique. My remark was meant less as blame and more as admission. It's a shame that you understand cinema, and I guess new media, to have been involved in a systematic degradation of the image. Renate and I spent last week in the company of the Quay Brothers whose quirky 35mm animations seemed to us to exemplify the thoughtful splendor of what Tom calls the continuous variation of animation. Although of a structure and quality that is very different from the anime informing Tom's project, they are splendid on the sticky (?) screens of today. My understanding is that with each passing generation the cinematic/screenic image has become further "complexified," particularly given the exemplary contributions of so many independent screen artists as their work has extended the material horizons offered by the development of ever sophisticated soft and hardware machines. Best, Tim >I wonder. > >Is the readiness to blame cinematic studies not another way of >ingorning how animation (like cinema, and probably all media), is a >shadow of its former self? Oh certainly, animation cicra 1960 was >pretty bad, but how much better it was than the drivel which aheres >to the sticky screens of today. With each passing generation the >image is further degraded and, simultaneously, a new geneation of >theorists gather to ignore its decline. > >My best > >Gerry > > > >________________________________________ >From: empyre-boun...@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au >[empyre-boun...@gamera.cofa.unsw.edu.au] On Behalf Of Timothy Murray >[t...@cornell.edu] >Sent: February 6, 2010 10:20 AM >To: soft_skinned_space >Subject: Re: [-empyre-] animetic machines > >Hi, Tom, > >Thanks ever so much for your stimulating post on "animetic >machines." I think you're really onto something important in >stressing the flow and force of the "continuous variation" of framing >and imaging as it traverses the interrelated histories of cinema, >animation, and new media. > >Indeed, the legacy of film studies has shackled us with a rather >deadening sense of the economy of "continuity" to such an extent that >I suspect that the theoretical and artistic communities could well >have shied away from embracing the "continuous" given its confusions >with the "continuity" so important to the conventional editing of the >Hollywood legacy. > >It's in a similar vein that I've been interested in "enfolding" into >the hegemony of the perspective machine the concept, flow, and force >of the "fold" as a space/field/concept of continuous machinic >variation. While I've tended to foreground the more baroque and >cinematic aspects of the fold in my writing, your post and recent >book sensitize me to the fact that much greater attention should be >paid to the role played by the legacy and conceptuality of animation >in the development of the digital fold, particularly within the space >of cinema. > >Thanks ever so much for such a cogent summary of the very complex >argument you launch in The Anime Machine. > >Best, > >Tim >-- >Timothy Murray >Director, Society for the Humanities >http://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/ >Curator, The Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art, Cornell Library >http://goldsen.library.cornell.edu >Professor of Comparative Literature and English >A. D. White House >Cornell University >Ithaca, New York 14853 >_______________________________________________ >empyre forum >empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au >http://www.subtle.net/empyre >_______________________________________________ >empyre forum >empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au >http://www.subtle.net/empyre -- Timothy Murray Director, Society for the Humanities http://www.arts.cornell.edu/sochum/ Curator, The Rose Goldsen Archive of New Media Art, Cornell Library http://goldsen.library.cornell.edu Professor of Comparative Literature and English A. D. White House Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14853 _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre _______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
