This weeks lecture was really good, but contained a lot of difficult information. I’ll try to put together my notes into a coherent blog post, but I’m not promising anything
Author: A “real” meaning external to the text
Text: a “real” meaning internal to the text – a variety of “real” meanings internal to the text, but from the outside. (but the text is subject to conditions found in itself).
Reader: The text is a thing that readers realise.
It has a logic that is internal to itself. Great work is aware of this. We don’t need to study the author to understand the work.
We analyse a film in terms of how it works in film logic. Internal visual metahors in Citizen Kane. Internal logic. Another mode, where we recognize. Interpret a present in what we’re studying, but frames of reference comes from the outside.
This refers to the fact that we are all raised within a culture that will effect the way we interpret a work. Lets say that a film, song, or story is sexist. It might not think so, but apply a framework from outside, we can prove how it is sexist. To one person it might be just a casual song, for others it can be highly offensive.
The text says something inside, but we have to analyse what it says about itself from the outside. Psycoanalysis: search the inside, it might not be evident?
In a really good work it knows how to listen to how the thing is doing in itself. Another body: reader response theory. A lot of the role of interpretation has changed from trying to define the object, to define the reader.
Debate within each body. Reader constructing the work and what the work gives back.
Fun example in how this works:
The list above was the reading list for one class. The lecturer left it on, and the second class, who were studying religious poetry, came in. The lecturer gave them a piece of a text, and they interpreted it as a religious poem.
We will always find relevance. ALWAYS. You just have to say it is a poem, and we will understand it like that.
Relates to a korsakow film. We don’t have to tell them. “A religious poem”, the reader will do the rest. How can we do this with our film? (should we perhaps refer to the city and to light so the reader understand the context?)
No gambling if we were not patternmaking animals.
In all of these TEXT is stable.
Question: What happens when what we are reading become unstable? Which is a Korsakow film. It can’t be fixed.
Korsakow falls between midway through the text and the reader, and it is crucially dependent on the reader.
Korsakow requires people to read it, like a guitar. You can’t just place it infront of them, and wait for something to happen. It is not just dependent on a reader to interpret, but that the reader actually participates. Engine to produce things. A film, a novel, a machine is not. Once it is made, it is fixed. A Korsakow film is always open.
GAPS. Some works want to erase the gap. Barthes enlarges the gap, invites you to fill it in. (Much like Scott McCloud, who we learned about last year.) What must I change in my understanding to understand this? Refer to the movie, embrace change, don’t deny it.
In an age of lots of media where everything can be shared: what are the things we should be making and why.
Shields extract on collage.(Try to find time to look further into this)
Push, interest in different in non fiction. We are making non fiction works. Lyrical, observational, poetic.
The law of mosaics: how to deal with parts in the absence of wholes.
I am quite content to go down to posterity as a scissors-and-paste man.
Story seems to say that everything happens for a reason, and I want to say, No, it doesn’t.
I’m not interested in collage as a refuge of the compositionally disabled. I’m interested in collage as (to be honest) an evolution beyond narrative. (Documentary, look it up when you start working on it)
Narrative has had its day, now collage is coming.
Meaning exist in the relation between the shots. Meaning, ultimately, is a matter of adjacent data.
For collage, the parts have to be parts, you have to see where they come from. Many becoming one.
Parts has history, so they never unify to a single unified thing. Always pulling.
Invent a rule and follow it. A rule for the parts! We have to do this for our project. How you think you make. Postindustrial requires that you plan everything in advance.
Momentum derives not from narrative, but from the subtle, progressive buildup of thematic resonances
I look at melody as rhythm
The main question collage artist face: you’ve found some interesting material – how do you go about arranging it.
Collage is pieces of other things. Their edges don’t meet.
The question isn’t What do you look at? But what do you see? I (KORSAKOW)
Make rules. The city is light. Make another proposition to make it more clear? Collage always form of editing.
Cultural context, we find ourselves within. I don’t invent my language.
Continuity is to hide the gaps, to hide that it is a movie. Don’t they know it’s a film?! The problem of scale is interesting. How long will the reader stay engaged? I don’t mean stay dutifully, but stay charmed, seduced, and beguiled. PLAY. Make it interesting! Make it charming, something that is pleasant to watch.
How can the viewer identify with your work?
Pleasure in finding stuff and composing with it in korsakow.
Some things to take from this: things always have context. Context of the moment of reading. It cant be erased. It is context from the moment of reading. Mood, tools, anything. Context provided by the work itself. Give it a decent title., it does a lot of work for you. Context that always, necessarily and inevitably attach themselves to things.
(Whats a “thing” here? Any communication action)
Part of Shields criticism is that fiction, storytelling, wants to claim that these context aren’t present. For Shields this is somply being both untruthful (so it is an ethical position) as well as part its use by date (aesthetically dull)
Cinema keeps escalating. Adds all these things to make it better, which doesn’t have much to do with cinema.
He writes a series of what Korsakow would be called SNU’s. Fragments. Pieces, Importantlu each piece has to retain some of its context – that context
In collage choosing the parts so that they are alwys still parts matters. Then, arranging them.
In korsakow ‘arrangments’ is emergent, or should be- (HOW?)
And as in Sheilds it proposes an ethics of making. (HOW?)
Essay completely out of stuff cited from other sources. A lot of reading, and arrange them together. Learn more by doing this.
How you think you can make and conduct yourself in the world. My job is to look and listen. If I can do this, I can make things that are worth making. Ethics in it.
Contained is the simply proposition that there are things to discover inside youself, inside the world, it is already there, you just have to learn how to look for it.