Posts Tagged ‘Gilberto Perez’

Quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes, 2/3

February 3, 2010

Willem de Kooning’s “Woman III” (1953).

From “The Miracle of Morgan’s Creek” (1942).

A painting puts the visible on view; a film brings into view successive pieces of the visible, and so enacts a continual exchange across the border, impassable in a painting, between the visible and the invisible. A painting exists within its frame; a film image exists amid transaction with what lies out of frame, what cannot be seen at the moment, what has left view and what at any point may enter. Representation in the film medium rests on the out of frame: it’s in relation to a space off screen and its implied contents that the images unfolding on screen make sense. The out of frame is not a fact, however, but a convention, a creation of film technique, in most cases not what was actually there out of range of the camera’s picturing but what we are to accept as being there in the space off screen. ‘Il n’y a pas de hors-texte,’ wrote Derrida: there is not out of text. The out of frame in a film, the hors-champ, is not out of text but a construction of the text.

From Gilberto Perez’s The Material Ghost: Films and their Medium.

Advertisements

Quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes, 12/28

December 28, 2009

Among the Xmas gifts that I begrudgingly accepted from my loving parents: Gilberto Perez’s The Material Ghost: Films and Their Medium, which I’m ever-so-slowly churning through, though it’s hardly a seductively sticky read—and that’s A-OK by me. Here’s a taste of what Perez has to say about the aesthetics of cinematographic images (he nicely theorizes cinema as being both narrative and drama, in the same way that a photon is both particle and wave):

Neither [Siegfried] Kracauer nor the Lacanian takes proper cognizance of the screen as a space of representation. The images on the screen are neither a reproduction of reality nor an illusion of it: rather they are a construction, derived from reality but distinct from it, a parallel realm that may look recognizably like reality but that nobody can mistake for it. Their picture of reality may be convincing, but in the way fiction is convincing; we respond to the picture not as we would to reality but as we respond to the constructs of representation. The images on the screen are a representation of reality—an imitation or mimesis in the Aristotelian sense—as a novel or a play or a painting is a representation.