[-empyre-] Hello from Hell

[naxsmash]

dear Kriss

your interview with Raul Ruiz is fantastic and he himself gets at some  
of this especially  your 1) and 2) and 4) and 5) below.   I am  
referring to this interview on vimeo:  http://vimeo.com/433722?pg=embed&sec=433722

I was so inspired by his extended excursion into the theory of the  
extended collusions of Giordano Bruno-- vinicula I think it is?   and  
magic

I'd been aware of Giordano Bruno for a long time since, after all,  
he's been in the Inferno since 1200 when Dante put him there (which  
circle?)

I think that to turn to Giordano Bruno's thinking about affective  
exchanges or flows as a cosmology is pretty useful especially if you  
have no air conditioning.


Perhaps you could talk with us about your ideas about Raul Ruiz's  
practice and how his view of the cinema (that place of god's absence,  
e. g. cinema is hell) and how to make films
has much to do with  a shamanistic understanding of a collusion or  
colloidal suspension of vision and kinesthesia and story.... ?

inspired by you,

thanks

Christina





naxsmash
naxsmash at mac.com


christina mcphee

http://christinamcphee.net
http://naxsmash.net





On Jul 12, 2010, at 8:13 AM, Kriss Ravetto wrote:

>
> Hi [-empyre-] Creativity as a social ontology community,
>
> I have been baking here on the East Coast of the US with the record  
> heat wave, and I agree with the point about creativity and  
> temperature (I do not feel very creative).  Apologies if I am not  
> coherent, there is still some morning breeze here.
>
> Given that I come to the question of creativity and social  
> networking through critical theory ? I teach film and media theory  
> at the University of Edinburgh.  I am aware I am going to change the  
> tone a bit.  I would like to start by rethinking a few points  
> (particularly terms)  that came up in last week?s discussion, and  
> ask if James and Simon had some thoughts about these issues:
>
> 1)  ?a tendency to focus only on the visual.? Hasn?t this  focus on  
> the visual changed with immersive and more interactive work that  
> attempts to be more affective (trigger kinesthetic as well as  
> emotional responses)?
>
> 2) ?complex nature of our experience? ? How do we understand  
> experience? Isn?t it also creative? Or are we back to oppositions  
> about active / passive, the singular and the general.  Experience  
> seems to fall into the category of what Deleuze called the  
> problematic since it cannot be singular (yet we perceive it as  
> such), since it requires action, interaction, mediation, and some  
> creative interpretation.  When we talk about ?our experience? are we  
> talking about something that is also a creative network ? that is  
> not owned by anyone?
>
> 3)  artist genius as Foucault argued is now a question of signature  
> which means copyright and legality.   The social science network  
> seems to operate on different principles and I would argue that it  
> is a platform designed to produce social creative ontology.
>
> 4)  I am curious about what people mean by the ?ideology of the  
> visual.? If images think then they must not think in terms of  
> language, but in terms of images, no? Therefore, if we are talking  
> ideology, aren?t we talking the creation of visual concepts.  The  
> problem here is can a single image think, or do we need a chain of  
> images to think (like the Lacanian chain of signifiers, i.e. the  
> cinematic)?  This has been debated since the 1960s (Metz, Pasolini,  
> Dayan, Mulvey, etc.)
>
> 5)  When we talk about sense, we talk about it as tacit knowledge.   
> Where does sense take place: take vision for instance, do we claim  
> it only takes place in the brain? Or are there other interfaces? Do  
> they make sense?
>
>
> 6) When we talk about Privacy or secrecy / trade secrets (i.e., no  
> open lab) then yes, innovation needs privacy in its inception. (This  
> is the subject of my husband's Mario Biagioli?s, current work, "From  
> Ciphers to Confidentiality" in States of Secrecy).
>
>
> 7) Intimacy leads us in a completely different direction. Privacy is  
> the problematic term here: when we refer to secrecy (in terms of  
> innovation, we are talking trade secrets, and nothing intimate), but  
> rights to privacy do touch on this, yet again, privacy seems to me,  
> not to be intimate.  Innovation or creative communities need not be  
> intimate, unless we are redefining what this term means.   Also, I  
> am not sure that intimacy is related to place.
>
> But this leads to the question of platforms as space.  How does a  
> site relate to space? Yes, we can reveal intimate secrets on such  
> sites, but there is something spatially distinct an estrangement,  
> and at the same time the spectacular (as Victor Burgin argues).
>
>
> -- 
> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
> http://www.subtle.net/empyre