Tom What a wonderful generous post. Thank you. Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 7, 2010, at 10:53 AM, "Thomas LaMarre, Prof." <thomas.lama...@mcgill.ca > wrote: > Hi Thyrza, > > Thanks for these challenging questions. Two of your comments were > striking for me. > > First, this question about animation subsuming cinema. I think > that, although this formulation ultimately proved awkward and less > useful than intended (and we probably wouldn't want to embrace now), > it did address a sense that something was changing in media, and > suddenly animation - or animations and animation techniques - > appeared central to media studies, and film studies began to rethink > that field as 'moving image studies.' at one level, there were > profound changes in production industries that many media scholars > have highlighted - for instance, there had developed fairly secure > and stable networks of production, distribution and circulation > around radio, cinema, and television, which encouraged a sense that > these really were different, almost in an ontological manner. Then, > with new media technologies, as these apparently stable media began > to appear less stable, it was hard to describe the new situation, > but it seemed clear that animation techniques were somehow br > idging or making new formations between the media formations that > were previously more distinct. So the idea that animation was > subsuming cinema initially afforded a good way to sort through > this. In fact, Oshii Mamoru, the famous animation director whose > films are neither films nor animation, made similarly bold claims > that all films were becoming animation. But then the sense of what > animation was, was also shifting. > > For me (and I apologize if I am beating a cracked drum again) this > situation was an invitation to rethink moving images and media > without recourse to the unities of cinema and animation that were > formerly stabilized in industrial production and criticism. And the > notion of the 'machine' (which incidentally is not mechanistic or > autopoetic but heterogenetic) seemed timely, because it was possible > to look at things in terms of assemblages with specific kinds of > spacing or intervals that had developed and persisted across media > formations. So, for me, the animetic machine is a potential of the > moving image that is first actualized in animation techniques for > historical and technical reasons, but is not limited to animation > per se. It can enfold and 'outfold' techniques, modes of > expression, and structures yet sustain a certain relation to the > moving image, a specific indeterminacy in the sense of a spacing and > a harnessing of forces. > > Second, I think this question - where are the brilliant works, and > what kind of stories would really make us care about any of this - > is so important. I wish I had an easy answer. On the one hand, > with my students, partly because of the kinds of animations we deal > with, it is clear that folklore, epic, and myth - in generic terms, > fabulation - are central to story making. Students seem to grasp > intuitively Bakhtin's ideas about the epic as an abstract > encyclopedic form, even if they don't like his somewhat negative > evaluation. But that negative evaluation does raise questions for > them. On the other hand, a manga like that of young female artist > Arakawa Hiromi (Full Metal Alchemistic), which is now a > transnational media mix event, shows that such media mixes can deal > effectively with questions about genocide, fascism, gender, and > technology. I think this is one of many brilliant works, but to > understand why it has had such impact on younger audiences, some of > the terms o > f analysis have to change. Or Cowboy Bebop with its anime genre > remix of jazz bebop and French and Italian new wave cinema. > > Such works are good points of entry into the works that we might > still find more challenging (like Passolini or Goddard) because they > are not discontinuous with them. > > Thanks, > > Tom > > On 06/02/10 4:23 PM, "Tgoodeve" <tgood...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hello tim and rene all -- just a quick post as I am new to empyre and > have been reading this dialogue but haven't really found a way in but > mention of the quays made me feel i should make a stab. The discussion > of deleuze and the animetic is fascinating. I hope we gi further with > that. But I don't understand in the discussion so far Is the way > cinema has to be subsumed completely by animation rather than looking > for their connections through the emergence of the digital. (there was > talk at the beginning of the problems of periodizing yet there seems > to be a reliance on it. Btw: i think it's impossible not to > periodize). Also continuity is one model not all of of the film theory > past and I know you all know this. And what about the polish and > eastern europen animators? And more in depth discussions of actual > examples or moments or poetics turned into philosophy? ( if that makes > sense? Like Pasolini on the long take -- I know that's film from the > 20 th century). These questions are probably too specific at this > point as you are all building from conversations based on bodies of > scholarship that make assumptions about cinema and animation I'm not > as schooled in so apologize but I do know some of lev's work. Your > point about the design interface of sets of variables (via software > design)as opposed to the static image of analogue animation is > crucial. But is it just "good" or when "formalist jackstraws" And > where brilliant new aesthetics? We all have students drunk on the > technology with norhing to say. I taught a course on storytelling > oral, book, cinema to digital > At nyu's ITP department and for their projects the students all asked > me "but what should we make stories about?" > And the quays -- since that is why Rene asked me in, we can talk about > their work down the line since the whole issue of "animation" /cinema > and other boundaries but it'd be along other lines.But the deleuzian > machine model could be great. > I'm writing this on my iPhone mid latte so excuse me if it is not well > thought out. > Best to all > Thyrza > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 6, 2010, at 11:37 AM, Timothy Murray <t...@cornell.edu> wrote: > >>> 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
