-----Original Message----- From: Adrian Miles [mailto:adrian.miles@uib.no] this isn't to diminish the problem, but in the theme you explore bergson (and deleuze) or at least my use of these, sees time as clearly qualitatively distinct from space and this confusion is a major one for lots of practice (arts and theory). <snip> so as a left field question, where do you see bergson/deleuze in your schema? Bergson (who I've never read) seems to be taking a sledgehammer to a nut, but who am I to judge. Deleuze is fascinating, but I hate being an -ist/-ian of any colour so . . . I think Jumpin' Gilles gets it wrong, for example, in seeing the time-image as a postwar vanguardist discovery. Au Contraire, cinema begins with the direct image if time in the film of the workers leaving the lumieres factory. A hundred viewings on and dozens of Kim's Game tests with students, and none of them (or me) can remember what happens - how many bicycles? Is the man who leave swith the dog the same one who cames back with it? There is a distracted, immersive experience on offer here, a sense of absolute movement, which is unutterably beautiful (and beautifully pointless). Antonioni already seemed dated by the time of the Passenger because it struggles to acieve what had already been the founding moment of cinema. I feel (but don't know the work well enough) that at heart Deleuze is an individualist, in the sense that he commences from a unique perceiving entity, consciousnes, whatever, which although it becomes social is not social at first. The lesson of the lumieres' film is that we are social first (see Chion on acousmatic sound, the audio equivalent - he describes it as 'democratic') I learn heaps from Deleuze, brilliant insights, fabulous ideas, but like Hopkins, the effect of masterpieces on me is to admire and do otherwise ;) s
<<winmail.dat>>