Moving to Other Website

I’m not sure how many people check this blog, as I haven’t updated it so a long time. But I thought this was at least showing respect to the reader who found me and kept coming here. My blog will be entirely deleted and moved to other address, https://atmosphericframe. com, and All my posts will be stored in that website and continue my journey.

Although I think I’ll use this address with the other purpose, but not as a blog.

Within a MONTH, this blog will be gone forever, and thank you for anyone who found me and read my posts.

See you soon.

Arthur Danto, Moving Picture

Ref: Danto, A. C. (2006) ‘Moving Pictures’, in Noël Carroll & Jinhee Choi (eds.) Philosophy of film and motion pictures: An Anthology. Blackwell philosophy anthologies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. p. 103-112

Section I (100-103) Moving Picture in Picture history (Comparison between film, painting, and drama)

섹션 1에서 단토가 가장 처음 하는 것은 필름을 연극에서 분리시키고 그 환경적 요인보다 이미지에 집중하는 것이다. 그에게 있어서 프로젝션은 필수요소가 아니다.

  • Danto expresses his understanding of “moving pictures” in the evolutionary expansion of representational patinting history, that devleoped out of drawing.
  • In relation to the drama (theatre), it is a seated audience focused on a common spectable. However it is not essential to film that they be projected onto screen, 그리고 단토가 예시로 든 무빙 빅처의 예시가 peepboxes 이다.
    • “it is due less to what is seen than to the fact that it is seen in a box […] a holy object deposited in the real world but not of it, belonging to another domain of reality […] that it logically excludes its spectators from the space and often the time it occupies.” (100)
  • 단토에게 있어서 프로젝터가 관객을 그 상자 안으로 들어갈 수 있게했으며 연극처럼 같은 경험을 공유하게 만들었다. (100)
    • “The invention of the projector enabled the audience to enter the box, which then receded into the mere walls of the theater, and some different method for marking the space between audience and spectacle was required: but this way a lot of people could see the same show at once, with measurable economic advantages to the impresario, chairs being cheaper than optical contraptions like Reynaud’s praxinoscopes.” (101)
  • 하지만 그럼에도 단토에게 있어서 film은 drama (theatre)라기보다 moving picture에 가깝고 그를 위해 프로스트의 예시를 든다.
    • chaque spectateur regardait comme dans un stereoscope un decor que n’etait que pour lui, quoique semblable au milliers d’autres, chacun pour soi, le reste des spectateurs (each spectator watched as in a stereoscope a setting which was only for him, although similar to the thousands of others, each for himself, the rest of the spectators). (101)
    • 다른 점을 들자면 1. for drama, each performance in the specific place and time (Plato ante rem) 2. the copy of two films of showing twice is not part of the concept of performance, not copy of one the other A(카피)가 B(원본)를 지목하지 않는다.
    • 또한 필름의 카피는 parallel compromises our appreciation of a showing 하지 않는다. 완벽히 똑같은 두개
      • But nothing remotely parallel compromises our appreciation of a showing which happens exactly to resemble another one, (101)
      • It is difficult to see that “an original” has any artistic significance in the appreciation of films, even though there are originals and epigones (모방자) amongst the filmmakers.
      • 사실 여기서 모방자라는 것은 똑같은 이미지의 복제가 아닌 (페인팅과 다르게) 스타일과 아이디어의 모방자라는 의미에 가깝지 않을까?
  • Also, the experiences of the film and painting are different: See and Watch. “[T]here is nothing further to watch for patining.” (102) For film, however, even if there are films in which nothing happens, there is a “end” for the film.
    • “Film and drama seem essentially temporal in a way somewhat difficult to pin down directly,” but compare to the painting, it has beginings and endings. For film, it brings logical immobility. “Here, immobility has to be willed.” (103)

Section II (103-104) A method for distinguishing between things, which are otherwise exactly alike
  • Here he mainly talks about methodological theory. 단토는 주로 방법론에 대해서 이야기를 나눈다. 즉 필름을 아트로서 아트의 안에서 어떻게 똑같을 수도 있는 두가지의 것이 다를 수 있는가에 대한 구별법을 통해서 철학적인 방법론을 찾는다. To deliver an inductive inference as correct, it is necessary to look outside of the set of possible hypotheses, which will challenge the consciousness that never would have been alive. “These factors will always be logically external to the thing in question.” (103)
    • (1) First example, Dream and veridical experience.
      • 예시로 어떤 사람들에게는 경험과 꿈은 다를 게 없다고 생각되어진다. 그리고 단지 다른 점은 경험은 그것이 무엇에 대한 경험인가에 대한 것에 의해 경험은 야기된다라는 것이다.
    • (2) Genuine and Fake
      • the distinction between them “must be established with reference to factors external to the works themselves” (103)
    • (3) Brillo boxes as artwork and real object
      • Warholl’s boxes as artwork not as sort of mere real objects from which they are indiscernile, which make two objects different.
      • When the eye fail to make a induction due to the exact same manifesting features, “understanding what art then is requires us to avert our eyes from the manifest appearance of things and ask what it is that does not meet the eye, which makes the difference between art and reality” […] “the difference is ontological and between things which otherwise are indiscriminable.” It is “the knowledge of this difference,” that makes diffrent experience. (103)
        • 모던시기에 우리는 예술 작업에 대해서 귀납적으로 이해할 것을 배웠다. 귀납적 개별적인 특수한 사실이나 현상에서 그러한 사례들이 포함되는 일반적인 결론을 이끌어내는 또는 역으로 보편성에서 구체성을 유도하는 추론 형식 -> 이것은 들뢰즈의 시네마 안에서의 방식이 아닌가?. 이러한 접근 방식은 어떠한 또 다른 것이 똑같은 특수한 사실이나 현상을 공유했을 때 설명하기를 실패하게 된다.
    • (4) 마지막으로 Film of a play and screenplay proper (106 Section III)
Section III (104-) Model and Motif in Photograph and Cinema in relation to the direct and spontaneous reality.
  • Photography stands in interesting relations to the real world, because when x filas the causal condition for the photography of x, semandical identification filas as well. (104)
    • “Thus something exactly like a photograph of Rouen Cathedral is itself not of Rouen Cathedral if not caused by the Cathedral of Rouen.” (104)
    • the photography fails the semantic link to their causes when (1) 발생요건에 의심이 생기거나 (2) 그것이 믿음에서 생겼거나 (3) 아무리 똑같이 닮았다고 (= representations of the world on the routine assumptions of causality and denotation) 해도 그 의미는 사라질 것이다.
    • But these contrains (of something) can be broken when (1) 찍힌 cause를 모티브로 의미론적 구조(semantical structure of its own)를 가지게 하거나 (motif) (2) stand for something ulterior, 다른 해석의 법칙 (rule of interpretation)을 가지게 하는 것이다 (model)
      • For instance, (1)Mrs Siddons as the Muse of Tragedy (2) A model (who is exactly looks like Mrs Siddons) for a painting of the Muse of Tragedy. 레이놀드의 원 초상화에서 비극적 뮤즈로를 모티브로 시돈스 부인를 그린 것인 반면, 다른 가능한 세계에서는 그녀와 닮은 모델이 비극적 뮤즈 라는 주제(subejct)를 담기 위한 용기가 된다. (105)
Reynolds’s portrait of Mrs Siddons as the Muse of Tragedy
Henry Peach Robinson’s ‘Fading Away’, is not documentation but models semantically opaque and stands this once for nothing.
  • Fianlly, he strated analyse representational differences in between photography and in cinema.
    • Photography inescapably dependent upon the objects it records (spontaneous reference to an external reality), while the cinema’s reality is considerably more elastic and less direct. (106)
      • The objects that we see in old movies have often far greater interest as motifs than as models, and the films themselves have a greater interest as inadvertent documentaries than as screenplays. (105)
      • 오브제트를 모티브로 다루었을 때 다큐멘터리, 모델로 다루었을 때 우의적 해석
    • 시네마의 현실과의 연결점에는 두가지가 있을 수 있다. (1) 연극이 필름으로 찍힌 것(film of a play = 햄릿 연극의 영상기록)과 (2) 카메라 앞에서 연극을 하듯이 찍은 것 (실재로는 연극이 없음) (screenplay proper = 햄릿 연극의 영상을 기록하듯 fake한 영상).
      • (1) Documentary about a particular performance of a particular play = film of a play (about actors) 연극을 찍은 필름 버전의 햄릿
        • 기록이 되면서 스테이지 앞에서 볼 수 없는 각도나 시선을 더할 수는 있지만 실재 이벤트는 그 밖에 있다. “But even so, it is a staged play which is being filmed, an external event having an existence external to the film” (106) “this intervention, however interesting, leaves the semantics of the situation unaffected (106)
        • 뉴욕의 그래피티를 찍은 사진이 그래피티가 무엇인가를 말하고 있다고 해도 그래피티에 관한 것으로 남는 것처럼, 이 영상은 다큐멘터리로 남는다.
      • (2) Screenplay proper 가 있을 수 있다. 무대에 오른 햄릿 형식으로 촬영된 필름 (==하지만 노엘 케롤이 말했듯이 여기 의미가 너무 애매모호하다==)
        • The actors are not part of what the film is about. Even if they are palying the actors, it is not about the persosn who is play\ but whose roles they play. For instance, Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)
  • 연극에서는 그 연극의 연속성이 배역으로 진행되고 영화에서는 그 연속성이 배우로 진행된기에 (film roles are often ephemeral (107) 여기서 위험성이 존재한다.
    • Filmed documentation of play -> actors as models rather than as motifs (someone playing as actor’s of Hamlet rather than actor playing the Hamlet) 연기자를 보는 것이 아닌 누군가 햄릿을 볼 위험성, 즉 여기선 performance가 중요하다.
    • Screenplay proper -> actors as motif rather than as models (actor playing himself as Hamlet rather than Hamlet himself) -> star system
      • So the fact that films use actors ought not to mislead us into thinking of film as an essentially performative art inasmuch as nothing counts as a different performance of the same work (107)
Section IV The space and time in photography and cinema, action. It’s the semantical preoccupations

어떻게 사진으로 찍힌 공간(혹은 시간)과 액션이 행해진 공간(혹은 시간)이 다른가? 단토가 생각하기에 moving picture의 moving은 subject의 움직임이 아니라 semantical movement 이다.

Avventura (1960), Michelangelo Antonioni directly used time in cinematic image
  • Moving pictures are just that: pictures which move, not just (or necessarily at all) pictures of moving things. (108)
    • Before the moving picture, it would not have been illuminating to call nonmoving piacture as nonmoving. 하지만 with statues, the possibility of movement was an ancient option. 예시: The statues of Daedalus, created by ancient Greek sculptor Daedalus, and in modern time, Alexander Calder’s mobiles and invented predicate “stabile” to designate his non-moving statues.
    • As “it had long been recognized that the properties of the thing represented need not also be properties of the representation itself.” (109) But some properties should be shared by representationand subject.
    • 즉 빨간색으로 칠해진 대나무는 빨간색이기에 yellownes 그런것이 아닌 “seeing that that they are yellow”. (109)
      • “‘‘Seeing that he moves,’’ or ‘‘seeing that they are yellow’’ are declarations of inference, supported by an initial identification of the subject and some knowledge of how such things in fact behave.” (109)
  • 어떤 경우건 영화에서 우리는 움직임을 보는 것이 아니라 그것이 움직이고 있는 것을 본다.
    • Where photography opens up a new dimension is when, instead of objects moving past a fixed camera, the camera moves amongst objects fixed or moving. (110)
    • 단토의 경우 클로즈업을 물체가 다가온다기보다 우리가 다가간다고 느낀다. 여기서의 움직임은 데카르트의 해석으로, 무정위 운동도 kinesis, static 정적도 아니다.

An experience of kinesis need not be a kinetic experience. The experience itself based on rather natural cartesian assumption, is a kinetic – neither kinetic nor static – but beyond motion and stasis, these being only the content of experience, like colors and shapes, and logically external to the having of the experiences as such…[camera is] logically external to the sights recorded by it – detached and spectatorial.

  • 여기서 단토는 건축적 공간의 이해에 시네마가 접근한다고 주장한다. 그저 보는 것이 아닌 moved through. 우리는 신 안에 있지만 또한 그 밖에 특정한 (드라마틱한) Location 없이 존재한다. 이러한 시네마의 공간 안에서 subejct change happens when cinema shows the movement of the camera is not our movement, and this has precisely the effect of thrusting us outside the action and back into our metaphysical cartesian hole, (111) which means the consciousness that it is film is what the consciousness is of, and in this move to self-consciousness cinema marches together with the other arts of the twentieth century in the respect that art itself becomes the ultimate subject of art, a movement of thought which parallels philosophy in the respect that phil- osophy in the end is what philosophy is about.
    • 그리고 다시나온 비슷한 두개 (1) a film about the making of a film, transformaing real object into artworks or parts of artworks (2) films whose own making is what they are about, transformation itself is what we are aware of. In the second, the price is that “the film becomes a documentary with the special character of documenting the making of an artwork.” (111)
    • 사르트르의 Sartre의 consciousness처럼 두개의 각각 다른 그러나 Inseparable, dimensions, consciousness of something as its intentional object, and a kind of non-thetic consciousness of the consciousness itself”

Then a film achieves something spectacular, not merely showing what it shows, but showing the fact that it is shown; giving us not merely an object but a perception of that object, a world and a way of seeing that world at once; the artist’s mode of vision being as importantly in his work as what it is a vision of.

Foucault’s Essence in Deleuze

Only in Korean, English will be posted later.


  • Density of Bodies
  • Incorporeal (Stoic)
    • Thinking = object of thought
  • Phantasm (Freudian)
    • thought is itself capable of thought freed from subject and the object
    • Repeats thought
  • Event
    • thought-event = singular as a throw of the dice

Foucault’s Deleuze

Logic of Sense by Gilles Deleuze

우연히 찾게된 알라딘의 한 우연히 찾게된 알라딘의 한 리뷰, 람흔이라는 이름으로 쓰여진 이 글에는 푸코와 루셀에 관한 이어짐 그리고 루셀에 대한 중요성을 알아본 들뢰즈에 대한 이야기가 짤막하게 적혀있다. 그는 푸코가 극히 적은 경우에 한하여 문학에 관하여 논의하였지만 루셀에 대한 논의의 중요성을 매우 적은 사람, 들뢰즈와 마슈레(Macherey) 만이 알아보았다고 이야기한다. 그렇다면 푸코는 들뢰즈에 대해서 무엇을 알아보았을까?

일단 푸코가 들뢰즈의 두 책에 대해서 쓴 철학 극장 이란 글에서 Logic of Sense 에 대해서 쓴 부분을 읽어보자. 푸코는 철학에서 오랜 시간동안 이벤트와 phantasm 환영이 경시되어왔다고 이야기한다. 이벤트는 개념과 동화되었고 사실의 형태로 추출되었으며 그 사건은 개념에 동화되었고, 실제 경험, 주체의 양식, 구체성, 경험적 역사의 내용에 의한 서술로 증명되었다고 이야기 한다. 반면 환영은 실재라는 이름으로 축소되었고 극단으로 위치되었으며 환상은 현실의 이름으로 감소되고, 극한, 즉 병리학적 극, 규칙적인 연결 sequence,에 위치하게 되었다: 지각-이미지-기억-환상. 문득 든 생각은 phantasm이라던가 요즘 한창 떠오르고 있는 (혹은 이미 지나간) hauntology 라던가 또는 들뢰즈의 immanence, 하이데거의 ground 모두 어느 정도 그리스의 사상을 이어가고 있다는 느낌이 든다는 것이다. 물론 데리다의 hauntology는 현재 디지털과 연동되어 다른 의미로 변화하고 있고 하이데거의 ground는 여러모로 하이데거의 이름만 빼고 흡수 되어버린 듯하지만 어느 지점에선가 공통점을 공유하고 있다는 생각이 든다. 아마도 동양의 사상이 기나 음과 양과 같은 세상에 대한 이미지를 공유하고 있는 것처럼, 물론 이것이 동양의 것만은 아니지만, 서양 철학 안에서 어떠한 이미지가 공유되고 있는 것이 아닐까?

19세기 이후로 가장 영향력이 있었던 프로이드와 마르크스, 푸코는 들뢰즈가 프로이드와 마르크스 혹은 마르크스와 프로이드라는 슬로건을 다시 부활시킨 것이 아닌 이벤트와 환영을 함께 이접적 진술 disjunctive affirmation 을 가능하게하였다고 주장한다.

Illusion and Phantasm

형이상학은 오랜 동안 스뮬라크럼에 대한 공포로 환영이 형이상학을 언제나 쫓아왔다. 형이상학은 환상이 아니었지만 환상은 형이상학이었다. 환상은 형이상학 중에서도 특정한 형이상학이 시뮬라크럼의 한 쪽과 오리지널 그리고 다른 쪽에는 완벽한 복제를 분리시킨 것에서 생성되었다.

환상 = 시물라크럼/오리지널 + 완벽복제

그러나 들뢰즈의 형이상학은 판타즘의 각정에 대한 비판을 시작한다 그를 통해 들뢰즈는 더이상 하나의 신을 찾는 형이상학이 아닌 신의 부재와 표면상 (표피상의) 도착적인 놀이에 대한 질문을 시작한다.

Logic of sense, EVENT

푸코가 읽는 들뢰즈로 돌아가보자. 솔직히 말해서 푸코가 말하는 들뢰즈는 매우 이해하기 힘들다. 그에 따르면 들뢰즈는 플라톤의 에센셜리즘을 마주하며 형이상학의 extra를 읽는 방식으로 에센스가 되기 전 프로세스에서 에센스로 뭉처지기 전의 assemblage에 주목한다고 이야기 한다. 이러한 집합은 유령들을 통해 유기체의 표면을 구성한다고 이야기 한다. proposition 속안에 위치할 수 없는 이벤트 혹은 동사처럼 그것은 유기체로 형성된다. 이러한 들뢰즈의 생각은 푸코가 보기에 스토아 학파의 비물체 incorporeal 과 프로이드의 환상에 대한 분석에 영향을 받았다고 여긴다.


  1. 단단한 신체의 한계에서 이벤트는 비실체적이다. (하나의 형이상학적 표면이다.).
  2. 말과 사물의 표면에서, 비실체적인 이벤트는명제의 의미이다. (논리적 차원에서)
  3. 담론의 맥락에서, 비실체적인 의미-이벤트는동사에 고정된다. (부정사 to+ 로의 현재)

여기서 가장 흥미로운 점은 푸코가 말한 세가지 방식의 이벤트에 대한 해석 방식이다. 첫번째로 Neopositivism (논리실증주의, 형이상학적인 사변을 배척 하고 과학적 탐구를 주장한 19세기 철학), phenomenology (현상학), 그리고 역사 철학이 있다. 논리실증주의는 논리적 에러로 인해 이벤트의 특징적인 부분을 파악하지 못했다. 그들은 이벤트와 물질의 상태를 혼동했다. 그러므로 그들은 이벤트를 물질적 과정으로 생각했고 물리주의와 연결시켰다.

  • 논리실증주의:이벤트=속성(attribute)

현상학의 경우 이벤트를 의미에 관련되어 방향을 재위치시켰다. 맨 이벤트를 의미의 전 혹은 그 옆에 위치시켰다. (돌의 사실성, 발생의 묵음의 관성) 그리고 그것을 의미의 과정 안으로 제안했다. 혹은 주요 의의 영역이라고 생각했다. 자아의 주변에 존재하는 세상의 배치로 존재했다.
현상학의 이러한 지점은 분명 공간적인 이해로서의 이벤트이다. 그것은 주변이며 peripheral around or side. 즉 미소보다 앞선 고양이가 가진 감각이라던가 고양이를 예상하게 하는 공통 감각적 미소 처럼. 사르트르나 몽티에게 있어서 이벤트는 의미와 함께하지 않았다. 마지막으로 역사 철학의 경우 이벤트를 시간의 원형 패턴으로 닫았다. 역사 철학의 오류는 문법적이었다. (Nietzsche, I, 13) 그들은 현재를 과거와 미래 안에 프레임된 것으로 보았으며, 현재는 그 형태가 준비되고 미래에 일어날 과거는 그 내용의 정체성을 보존하는 이전의 미래입니다. 이러한 현재에 대한 감각은 에센스에 대한 논리 (현재를 기억안에 확립시킨다)와 개념(현재가 미래의 지식으로 확립된다)을 필요로 하고, 그 다음에 계층적 세계의 왕관적이고 일관된 우주의 형이상학을 요구한다. 즉 계층적인 세상을 요구하게된다.

따라서, 논리실증주의, 현상학, 역사철학 보두 이벤트를 이해하는데 실패한다.

  1. 첫째는, “세상 바깥”에 놓여 있는 것들에 대해 아무 말도 할 수 없다는 핑계로, 사건의 순수한 표면을 거부하고, 그것을 세계의 구형적 도량으로 억지로 감싸려 한다.
  2. 둘째는, 의미가 의식을 위해서만 존재한다는 핑계로, 사건을 바깥과 앞, 또는 안과 뒤에 배치하고, 항상 자아의 원과 관련하여 그것을 배치한다.
  3. 셋째는 사건이 제때만 존재할 수 있다는 핑계로 그 정체성을 규정해 확실하게 중심화된 순서에 따라 제출한다. 세계, 자아, 그리고 신: 항상 사건을 모호하게 하고 성공적인 사상의 형성을 방해하는 세 가지 조건.

델루즈의 제안은, 오늘까지, 이 사건에 부과된 이 세 가지 주제를 해제(lifting)하는 것으로 향하고 있다. 즉, 비실체적 이벤트의 형이상학 (세계물리로는 환원되지 않는), 중립적 의미의 논리 (현상학적 주제에 의한 어의가 아닌), 그리고 현재부정사 (present infinitive) (과거의 에센스에서 솟아오른 개념적 미래가 아닌)

Deleuze’s proposals, I believe, are directed to lifting this triple subjection which, to this day, is imposed on the event: a metaphysics of the incorporeal event (which is consequently irreducible to a physics of the world), alogic of neutral meaning (rather than a phenomenology of signification based on the subject), and a thought of the present infinitive (and not the raising up of the conceptual future in a past essence). (176)

이벤트는 환상의 연속으로 부재 속에 존재한다. 오리지널의 부재, 모든 모방 형태의 밖, 유사성의 similitude 제약에서의 자유, 그러한 부재의 반복으로 이벤트는 존재한다. 결과적으로 이벤트는 반복 속에 존재하는 위장이며 단일성의 가면으로 아무것도 가리지 않는다. 아무것도 위장하지 않는 시뮬라크라, 존재하지 않는 나체, “순수한 차이” 이다.

Logic of Sense 는 푸코가 보기에 어떻게 이벤트와 컨셉을 이해할 수 있게 되는지 또한 그 둘의 이중 진술, 진술의 분리를 보여준다고 여긴다. 컨셉을 통해 어떠한 연속의 중요성도 부정하며 이벤트를 확정하는 것, 이것이 아마도 ‘안는 것’일 것이라고 이야기한다. 환상을 현실과 비교하여 측정하고 그것의 오리진을 찾는 것.

환상과 이벤트, 생각하는 물체 (le pense, the thing being thought) 와 생각 그 자체 (la pensee)

Deleuze and Pluto

But Deleuze locates Plato’s singularity in the delicate sorting operation which precedes the discovery of essence, because it necessitates the world of essences in its separation of false simulacra from the multitude of appearances. (167)
But Deleuze locates Plato’s singulariry in the delicate sorting, in this fine operation that precedes the discovery of essence precisely because it caIls upon it, and tries to separate malign simulacra from the masses [peuple] of appearance. (39)

이러한 들뢰즈의 시작점은 플루톤이다. 더 자시히 말하면 플라톤의 반대편 스토익 학파, 에피쿠로스와 제논에 대한 그의 대화, 루크레티우스와 크리시퍼스에 대한 이야기 속에서 프로이드를 발견할 수 있다고 푸코는 이야기한다. 또한 푸코는 들뢰즈의 “reversed Platonism” 을 이야기하며 (Foucault, 167) 카테고리로 사냥꾼, 목수 등과 같이 분류 했던 소크라테스와 다르게 플라톤은 pure gold, 즉 에센스를 찾고자 했다고 이야기한다. 하지만 어떻게 진짜와 가짜를 구별할 것인가? 어느 것이 에센스인지 어떻게 알아 볼 것인가?

Certainly not by discovering a law of the true and false (truth is not opposed to error but to false appearances), but by looking, beyond these manifestations to a model, a model so pure that the actual purity of the “pure” resembles it, approximates it, and measures itself against it; a model that exists so forcefully that in its presence the sham vanity of the false copy is immediately reduced to nonexistence. With the abrupt appearance of Ulysses, the eternal husband, the false suitors disappear. Exeunt simulacra. (Foucault, 167)
분명 진실과 거짓의 법칙을 발견하는 것은 아닐 것이다. (진실은 오류의 반대가 아니라 잘못된 표현의 반대이다) 너무 순수해서 진정한 순수성의 “순수”가 그 모델을 닮고 유사하며 그것을 반대로 측정한 모델. 강력하게 그 스스로 안에서 존재하므로 무가치한 가짜 사본은 즉시 무존재로 환원되게 하는 모델, 그 모델이 명시하고 있는 것의 그 너머를 바라봄으로써. 영원한 남편 율리시스의 갑작스러운 등장과 함께 거짓 구혼자들이 사라진 것처럼 그것은 시뮬라크라를 퇴장시킨다. (translation by myself)

플라토의 경우 보이는 것과 에센스를 반대에 위치시킨다. 하지만 들뢰즈는 그 순수성 singularity 의 앞의 과정에 집중한다. 즉 에센스가 시뮬라크라에서 분리되기 전의 분류 작업을 하기 위해선 본질 적인 세계가 필요하기 때문이다. 그러므로 플라톤의 반대가 되기 위해선 appearance를 에센스의 지위로 그 위치를 올리거나 다른 에센스를 발견하려고 노력하는 것은 소용이 없다. 오히려 우리는:

Rather, we should welcome the cunning assembly that simulates and clamors at the door. (168)

플라톤을 무너뜨린다는 것은 위에서 부터 시작해 그 기원을 찾는 것이다. 또한 가장 작은 디테일을 찾는 것이다. 이후 푸코는 들뢰즈의 Logic of Sense 와 퐁티의 The Phenomenology of Perception 의 차이점을 비교한다. 예를 들어 퐁티에게 신체 유기체는 원시적 의미들의 네트워크를 통해 세상과 연결되어 있다. 들뢰즈에겐 “phantasms”이 불가해하고 무형체적인 신체의 표면을 형성한다. 이게 도대체 무슨 의미일까? 여기에서 말하는 phantasms의 의미는 정확히 무엇을 의미할까? 푸코가 말하는 들뢰즈는 바로 이렇게 유령이 신체의 표면을 형성하는 과정과 동시적으로 위상적이고 cruel 이 형성되는 데 이것은 스스로를 거짓으로 중심적 유기체로 위치시키고 또한 스스로를 유기체의 외각으로 분표 시켜 “remoteness of things” 로 만든다. 푸코는 그로 인해 감각의 논리가 형이상학이 이야기하지 않았던 것을 지적하며무시하는 것이 아닌 형이상학의 추가적 extra를 이야기함으로 가장 무례하면서도 대담한 형이상학의 책이라고 주장한다.

Illusion is certainly the source of every difficulty in metaphysics, but not because metaphysics, by its very nature, is doomed to illusion, but because for the longest time it has been haunted by illusion and because, in its fear of the simulacrum, it was forced to hunt down the illusory. Metaphysics is not illusory—it is not merely another species of this particular genus— but illusion is a metaphysics.

다시말해 환상은 형이상학의 어려움의 근원이지만 환상 때문에 형이상학이 망해서가 아니라 환상에 의해 오랜 시간동안 사로잡혀 있기 때문이며 그것이 시물라크럼의 두려움에 속하기 때문이다. 형이상학은 환상이 아니지만 환상은 형이상학이다.


키프로스의 제논이 생각했듯, 입은 음식이 넘어가는 곳임과 동시에 의미가 지나가는 곳이다. 발화는 입, 구멍 orifice, the canal, 아이가 시뮬라크라를 발화하며 부분을 절단하는 신체가 없는 장기이다. 입은 깊이와 표면이 절단되는 곳이다 articulated.

The mouth where cries are broken into phonemes, morphemes, semantemes: the mouth where the profundity of an oral body separates itself from incorporeal meaning. (179)
입은 울음소리 (외침이)가 음소, 형태소, 의미소로 분해되는 곳이며: 입은 구강 신체의 깊이가 스스로를 무실체적 의미와 분리되는 곳이다..


  • 이데아 = 나무의 정의, 직사각형의 정의 = 이데아, 정의 = 직사각형
  • 이데아를 알기 위해서 이데아의 이데아가 필요한 현상 즉 extra (examples) 들의 형성
  • 만약 이데가 혹은 에센스가 중심이 없는 환영이라고 한다면 그리고 그 주변의 순수한 변형이 이벤트라고 한다면 영화는 순수한 이벤트의 환영이며 페인팅은 순수한 환영의 이벤트 이지 않을까?


  • Foucault, Michel. Language, Counter-Memory, Practice: Selected Essays and Interviews (Cornell Paperbacks). Edited by Donald F. Bouchard, Translated by Donald F. Bouchard and Sherry Simon, Cornell University Press, 1980.
  • Foucault, Michel. Death and the Labyrinth: The World of Raymond Roussel. Translated by Charles Ruas, Continuum, 2007.
  • Johnston, John. “Discourse as Event: Foucault, Writing, and Literature.” MLN, vol. 105, no. 4, 1990, pp. 800–818. JSTOR, Accessed 19 June 2021.

National Museum of Korea

I’m not an expert for the Religion nor History, but I found two subjects are fascinating. Firstly, the Korean Map in the 14th and 18th century were fascinating in terms of 14th century map’s symbolic abstraction and 18th map’s accuracy. I probably write more about those map in the later article but today I would like to write about Buddhist painting which I found in the National Museum of Korea.

National Museum of Korea established in 1945 and as a major flagship for the history and art museum in South Korea. This place developed various research, archive, education programs from historical human artefacts and artworks in Korea and Asia, including China, Japan, the south, and the middle east, which shows a correlated history of Eastern culture and art.

the Buddhism collection evidence alteration and mutation through the cultural understanding of an idea, which shows how one major religion in human history has spread all over Asian culture. It might worth researching more how symbolic imageries and icons changed in different cultures and countries.

One giant painting in the National Museum was a large scroll painting ‘Scroll Painting at Sin-Wonsa’ in 1664. This painting size almost 10m in height and 6.5 m in width for the purpose of hanging outside of a Buddhist temple called Sin-Wonsa to spread the speech of Buddism. In the middle, Vairocana, with glorious and florid accessories, seems still in the practice of asceticism, shows how the depiction of the Buddhism world with majestic lights and colours in the 17th century. Furthermore, each people surrounding Vairocana represent different Bodhisattva (saints) and pupils with iconic figures.

I can’t help myself think of Christian paintings, which also has a circular figure that is the light around a saint or angel’s head with the dazzling colours to connote how ‘saint’ this figure is. Although the Korean dictionary says this circle or nimbus might be started from the 1st century in Buddhism and 2nd century for Jesus and angels, because it has a long history, it is hard to figure out when or where this figure started and how it began to represent power or saintness. (or maybe there is already an article about it) Further relation might be the size of the figures. As Vairocana is the most important figure in this painting, his or her size is bigger than the others, the size of the figure indicates the weight or importance than distance in a three-dimensional sense. Therefore, it also might be possible to think that it is a ‘closed up’ figure in the cinematic sense.

In the western, especially French theories, the technique of ‘close up’ related to facial expression, ‘[T]he close-up is the technical precondition for the art of facial expression and hence of the higher art of film in general.’ (Balazs, 2010, p. 37) Deleuze once wrote that close-up scenes cut up human face on the screen and create a map of expression. Mary Ann Doane also recits Deleuze and notes

‘Gilles Deleuze, citing Béla Balázs, claims that “the close-up does not tear away its object from a set of which it would form part, of which it would be a part, but on the contrary it abstracts it from all spatio-temporal co-ordinates, that is to say it raises it to the state of Entity” (95–96). Of all the different types of shots, it is the close-up that is most fully associated with the screen as surface, with the annihilation of a sense of depth and its corresponding rules of perspectival realism. The image becomes, once more, an image rather than a threshold onto a world. Or rather, the world is reduced to this face, this object.’

(Doane, 2003, p. 91)

Doane further cited Eisenstein that French or Russian and English understandings of close-up differ through its varying nomenclature in different languages and terms of spatial qualities. For instance, ‘[i]n Russian and in French, the term for close-up denotes largeness or large scale (e.g., gros plan in French); while in English, it is nearness or proximity that is at stake.’ (Doane, 2003, p. 92) In this sense, French understanding of cinematic close-up closely related to Buddhist paintings and their figural size in the scrolls.

I already uploaded her article in the previous post but for more critical anlysis about the close-up and the frame, Rosalind E. Krauss’s Close-up: Frame by Frame and Eisenstein’s and Deleuze’s close-up should be analysed as well as the close-up in Ancient paintings.


Deleuze, Gilles. Cinema 1: The Movement-Image. Trans. Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1986.
Doane, Mary Ann The Close-Up: Scale and Detail in the Cinema_. Differences, (2003) 14 (3): 89–111. doi:

Present presentation in Colloquium

Yesterday, I finished my presentation in the colloquium. Although I prepared my script for the presentation, I felt I need to fix many things for my presentation, maybe for later.

It is interesting how to present one’s own work, especially when it is not a single experiment but a whole year project. I want to write down some reflection here so I can be better next time. First of all, what I did for this colloquium was preparing a very simple structure that started from a holistic view of the project concept then moved on to each concept I used for my project. There were two main concepts and my experimental video, which I won’t talk about here but maybe briefly some aspect of it. As my title shows from the picture, Map, Montage, and Frame are the central core for my project. However, because they all very complex ideas and are not necessarily interconnected, it was harder to introduce why I picked them for my project and how they are intertwined together. In retrospect, I should put one more slide for that.

Maybe it would be better to show some examples of the map and montage than just some words to explain. I got one comment that the video was nice in the end, and probably it made more sense than just showing some concepts, but it was harder to grasp what those concepts meant. One of the reasons why it was still very vague was that I am currently developing those concepts in the context of cinematic space, and both authors, Deleuze and Eisenstein, had never clearly explained what exact meaning when they used those terms. The second reason would be those concepts are ongoing projects for them too. Some people said it is so philosophical, and yes, they were philosophers; Eisenstein was, in a sense, an aesthetic philosopher, and those concepts are ongoing concepts and unfinished concepts for their own time.

Then, the problem is, how should I explain something that is still in the process of developing, such as experiments, concepts, ideas, or images. How should I present them in a tangible sense? I always thought that showing my work will deliver a better effect, but when it is ‘a concept,’ how should I show it to others who never heard about it? One answer would be showing the process. Notwithstanding its complex relations, it would offer some sense of holistic understanding of how the conceptual journey went through. But what if it only touches boundaries or surfaces of it? Probably this is one reason I should practice ‘diagram’ here. Maybe I can draw a diagram to cut twigs and remains abstracted connections of it. (That’s the spirit of the diagram, isn’t it?!?)

I have one more presentation left and hopefully a few more in the future. Before those presentations, I should draw a diagram of my project and post a reflection here.

Write the Comma

In retrospect, it made me feel like challenging running. So many things happened altogether and changed from all different perspectives. I run too hard but still not satisfied with what I have now. Maybe that’s my way of dealing with a tough life. I run, and I’m still running.

I had some dreams, the dreams that showed me what would happen otherwise. Well, it’s all my dream, fantasy, a possibility from my brain, my logical brain in its own law, so anything possible if that shares the same ground as I experienced in real life. That’s, I believe, the nature in the concept of the future. I run a whole year without actually cleaned out remains and toward forwarding only, so maybe those dreams mean that I need to reorganise the things before I move on to the possibles. In this first year, I wanted to achieve something other than academic, and I think I got 1/5 of that, still a long way to go.

I will restart my short writings here and plan what I want to make for the next. But all before that, I do want some real rest. Maybe a week or two, I want to watch films and read some casual readings. I was thinking of starting YouTube, but I’m not sure what YouTube about. Maybe I can make videos about what I am learning now.

I think this kind of short writings might be good for refreshing the new round.

Close-up and Cinema

Main Reference: Mary Ann Doane, ‘The Close-up: Scale and Detail in the Cinema’, Differences, 14.3 (2003), 89–111
Tags: #cinema #Montage #Eisenstein #Epstein

Reference at the front from Main reference, at the end from second reference

90 엡스테인

  • 가장 오래된 필름 이론중의 하나인 (프랑스 인상주의 1920년에 시작된)
    • 언어를 초과하기에 가장 시네마적으로 인식되었던 photogénie ➡︎ theoretically incoherent
    • which exceeds language and hence points to the very essence of cinematic specificity.
  • 엡스테인에게 그것은 시네마의 행위적 규범에 속박되어있었다.
    • For Epstein “I would describe as photogenic any aspect of things, beings or souls whose moral character is enhanced by filmic reproduction” (Bonjour 20).
    • it transforms the face, reserved as the very locus of subjectivity into a series of harsh and alien objects.
    • 어떤 관객도 거대한 디테일, 우연성들(contingencies), 특이성들을 살펴보도록 초대된다.
    • The close-up is always, at some level, an autonomous entity, a fragment, a “for-itself.”
      • totality
  • (내 예시)
  • Jean Epstein, Le Lion des Mogols, Jean Epstein, 1924, Provenant de la collection : La Cinémathèque française
  • Epstein’s extravagant language, perhaps unconsciously and certainly despite the invocation of morality, delineates the close-up as a lurking danger, a potential semiotic threat to the unity and coherency of the filmic discourse.
    • 가장 많이 쓰이는 클로즈업은 = 얼굴 the face, fragments the body, decapitating it

91-93 Semiotic role of the close-up

  • 이러한 공간을 다 써버린 얼굴들과 오브젝트들은 시간의 순간들로 일직선적 시간의 내러티브로 펼쳐진다.
    • Space is “used up” by the face or object, and the time of the moment, the time of Epstein’s contemplation, is expanded at the expense of the linear time of narrative.

들뢰즈와 다이아그램 그리고 클로즈업

  • Gilles Deleuze, citing Béla Balázs, claims that “the close-up does not tear away its object from a set of which it would form part, of which it would be a part, but on the contrary it abstracts it from all spatio-temporal co-ordinates, that is to say it raises it to the state of Entity” (95–96).
    • 들뢰즈의 경우 (벨라 발라즈를 예시로) 클로즈업은 한 부분으로 귀속되어있던 오브젝트에서 찢겨나오는 것이아닌 오히려 그것은 그 오브젝트를 시공간의 좌표를 추상화하여 state of Entity 로 상승시킨다.
    • Gilles Deleuze, Cinema I: The Movement-Image, trans. by Hugh Tomlinson and Barbara Habberjam, Bloomsbury Revelations, Paperback edition (London ; New York: Bloomsbury Academic, an imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2018), p. 106.
  • 클로즈업은 시네마틱 차이점과 특수성으로 자주 나타난다.
    • 발라즈에게 클로즈업은 예술필름의 기술적 조건 “the technical condition of the art of film” (qtd. in Aumont 84)
    • 엡스테인에게 클로즈업은 시네마의 영혼 Epstein described the close-up as the “soul of the cinema” (“Magnification” 9)
    • 세르게이 에이젠슈테인에게 있어서 For Sergei Eisenstein, close-up is a crucial element of montage, the close-up was the support of an intellectual, critical cinema.
      • argued for the disengagement of the close-up from reality, criticizing Griffith for his inability to abstract, to get beyond the “narrowly representational” (Film243).
        • Here is the same defect again: an inability to abstract a phe­nomenon, without which it cannot expand beyond the nar­rowly representational. For this reason we could not resolve any “supra-representational,” “conveying” (metaphorical) tasks.
          • Sergei M. Eisenstein, Film Form: Essays in Film Theory, trans. by Jay Leyda, A Harvest Book, 153 (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1977), 243.
      • The function of the close-up in the Soviet cinema was “not so much to showor to presentas to signify, to give meaning, to designate (238).
      • 리얼에서 찢어내어 “absolute changes in the dimensions of bodies and objects on the screen” (Eisenstein, Au-delà229)
      • “[T]he laws of cinematographic perspective are such that a cockroach filmed in close-up appears on the screen one hundred times more formidable than a hundred elephants in medium-long shot” (112).
  • 에이젠슈테인과 다른 이들이 지적했듯, 컨셉은 용여체계 nomenclature에 따라 다르게 해석되곤 한다.
    • Russian and French ➡︎ 크기 largeness or large scale (fros plan)
      • it is thought as a quality of the image, as extensiveness, scale, an imposing stature, the awe of the gigantic as opposed to the charm of the miniature.
      • the Russian and French terms reject possession in favor of transcendence (the image is truly “larger than life”), a scale that guarantees unattainability.
        • Extras: Susan Stewart, On Longing: Narratives of the Miniature, the Gigantic, the Souvenir, the Collection, 1st paperback ed (Durham: Duke University Press, 1993).
    • English ➡︎ 거리 nearness or proximity
      • In the American context, it is conceptualized in terms of point of view, perspective, the relation between spectator and image, the spectator’s placein the scene, and an assumed identification between viewer and camera.
  • 벤야민 Benjamin 에게 클로즈업은 재생산된 이미지를 소유하고자 하는 욕망과 맞닿아있다. possession, possessiveness, the desire to “get hold of an object”
    • the desire of contemporary masses to bring things “closer” spatially and humanly, which is just as ardent as their bent toward overcoming the uniqueness of every reality by accept- ing its reproduction. Every day the urge grows stronger to get hold of an object at very close range by way of its likeness, its reproduction. (“Work of Art” 223)
  • Metz ➡︎ 언어학적 접근이 유행했던 1970년대 유사과학적 접근을 했던 크리스티앙 메츠의 경우 초기 필름 이론에서의 우쭐되던 클로즈업에 대한 해석은 사라진다. 대신 언어학적 시테마의 유닛으로 남는다.
    • and hence why the cinema is always speech—paroleversus langagein Saussure’s terms
      • The image isalways actualized. Moreover, even the image— fairly rare, incidentally—that might, because of its content, correspond to a “word” is still a sentence: This is a particular case, and a particularly revealing one. A close-up of a revolver does not mean “revolver” (a purely virtual lexical unit), but at the very least, and without speaking of the connotations, it signifies “Here is a revolver!” It carries with it a kind ofhere (a word which André Martinet rightly considers to be a pure index of actualization).
        • Christian Metz, Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema, University of Chicago Press ed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), 67.

94 anthropomorphic close-up

  • For Balázs 발라즈에게 클로즈업은 오브젝트이건 인간 얼굴이건 anthropomorphic .
    • “When the film close-up strips the veil of our imperceptiveness and insensitivity from the hidden little things and shows us the face of objects, it still shows us man, for what makes objects expressive are the human expressions projected on to them. The objects only reflect our own selves.
    • “This most subjective and individual of human manifestations is rendered objective in the close-up” (60).
      • 이것은 특히나 무성영화에서 더 강하게 나타나며 인간과 오브젝트 모두 똑같이 homogeneous 픽처, 사진적 재료들로 같은 스크린에 나타난다.
  • according to Aumont, is “the operation which produces a surface that is sensible and legible at the same time, which produces, as Deleuze says, an Entity” (85).
    • The close-up transforms whatever it films into a quasi-tangible thing, producing an intense phenomenological experience of presence, and yet, simultaneously, that deeply experienced entity becomes a sign, a text, a surface that demands to be read. This is, inside or outside of the cinema, the inevitable opera- tion of the face as well.
    • Deleuze formulates even more extreme
      • “As for the face itself, we will not say that the close-up deals with [traite] it or subjects it to some kind of treatment: there is no close-up of the face, ~the face is itself close-up~, the ~close-up is by itself face and both are affect, affection image~ ” (88)

95 Universal language and close-up

  • (96) Almost all theories of the face come to terms in some way with this opposition between surface and depth, exteriority and interiority.
    • the face constitutes a kind of universal language, and Balázs refers to the “universal comprehensibility of facial expression and gesture” (44–45).
      • Béla Balázs, Theory of the Film: Character and Growth of a New Art (New York: Dover Publications, 1970).
      • Extra: Béla Balázs, ‘Close-Up’, in Béla Balázs: Early Film Theory: Visible Man and the Spirit of Film, ed. by Erica Carter, trans. by Rodney Livingstone, Film Europa : German Cinema in an International Context, 10 (New York: Berghahn Books, 2010), pp. 37–45.
  • Traditionally, according to Deleuze, the face has been given three roles:
    1. as the privileged site of individualization (it embodies each person’s uniqueness);
    2. as the manifestation of social role or social type;
    3. as the primary tool of intersubjectivity, of relation to or commu- nication with the other (this also refers to an adequate, mimetic relation, within the individual, between face and character or role).
  • This understanding of the face requires that it be completely detached from ordinary notions about its social semiotics.
  • The close-up pushes us beyond the realm of individuation, of social role, and of the exchange that underlies intersubjectivity.
  • Yet, there is simultaneously a strong denial that cinematic specificity is at work here—the face and the close-up are equated in the arguments of Deleuze, Aumont, and even Balázs. Inevitably, these analyses (particularly those of Epstein and Balázs) produce nostalgia for the silent cinema, since it is the face that speaks there, and speaks to us (rather than to other characters) so much more eloquently when mute.
    • 그러나, 동시에 영화 적 특이성이 여기에 작동한다는 강한 부정이있다 – 얼굴과 클로즈업은 델뢰즈, 오몬트, 심지어 발라즈에게 있어서동일시된다.

98 Examples

  • (For Epstein) Sessue Hayakawa’s face In Cecil B. De Mille’s 1915 The Cheat – Given the stony immobility of his face, a slight twitch of an eyebrow could convey extraordinary significance.
  • Rouben Mamoulian, Queen Christina, 1933.
  • Alfred Hitchcock, Sabotage, 1936.


The legibility of all three instances of the close-up is intimately linked to their very lackof autonomy.


  • However, I am not confirming here the banal argument that the close-up must always be read in context and that therefore film theory’s espousal of the idea of its autonomy, its unavoidable despatialization, is simply wrong.
    • why the marked discrepancy between theory’s excessive concentration on the close-up’s extractability from all spatiotemporal coordinates, its production of a hitherto unknown dimension, and its practice within specific films?
      • I would argue that it has a great deal to do with an implicit politics of cinematic scale, most visibly incarnated in the close-up.
      • A number of theorists attempt to elaborate a politics of the close-up or a politics of the face
      • According to Deleuze and Guattari in A Thousand Plateaus, “The face is a politics [. . .]. Certain assemblages of power require the production of a face, others do not [. . .]. The reason is simple. The face is not a universal. It is not even that of the white man; it is White Man himself, with his broad white cheeks and the black hole of his eyes” (181, 175–76).
        • Face = White Man
          • The societies that do not require the production of a face are (predictably enough) primitive societies, societies that are “collective, polyvocal, and corporeal” as opposed to signifying and subjective. They do not operate through the face but through the body, bringing into play heterogeneous forms and substances.
      • For Aumont, on the other hand, the face has operated as the very location of the human since it, ~together with the voice~, allow us a privileged access to the humanity of the other.

106 Detail and despatialisation

  • The only film theorist who situates the politics of the close-up in relation to the question of scale is Eisenstein, with his emphasis on the superiority of the Russian term—large scale or large shot—to that of the English—close-up. [[202012251645—Eisenstein and Close-up]]
    • the close-up is most significantly the close-up of objects, not of the human face:
    • The representation of objects in the actual (absolute) proportions proper to them is, of course, merely a tribute to orthodox formal logic. A subordination to an inviolable order of things [. . .]. Absolute realism is by no means the correct form of perception. It is simply the function of a certain form of social structure. (Film 34–35)
  • Balázs – Balázs, who embraces the defamiliarization argument, also argues that the close-up is not a detail because there is no whole from which it is extracted. The space of the narrative, the diegesis, is constructed by a multiplicity of shots that vary in terms of both size and angle—hence this space exists ~nowhere~; ~there is no totality of which the close-up could be a part~. And certainly if one accepts the theories of the close-up’s despatialization, it cannot be defined as a detail, since it occupies the only space there is, constituting itself as its own whole or totality, abolishing off-screen space.
    • Extra: Invagination ➡︎ Jacques Derrida, ‘The Law of Genre’, trans. by Avital Ronell, Critical Inquiry, 7.1 (1980), 55–81.
  • 이야기 안에서는: ~In the diegesis,~ that fictional space produced by the film, the close-up—despite Balázs’s denial—will always ~constitute a detail~, a part.
  • 관람객의 공간에서는: Yet, ~in the spectator’s space~, that of the theater, the close-up will, even if only momentarily, constitute ~itself as the totality~, the only entity there to be seen.
    • 30년간의 필름 연구에서 관람객의 공간을 없애기 위해 노력해왔다. 그렇기에 클로즈업은 자율적인 실채로 face of the closed
      • (108) Three decades of film theory have insisted that the classical cinematic text works to annihilate this space of the spectator—to suggest that the only world is that on the screen. Hence, the embrace of the close-up as autonomous entity by Balázs, Deleuze, and especially Epstein, is an attempt to salvage spectatorial space, to reaffirm its existence and its relevance in the face of the closed, seamless space of the film.


  • In the close-up, the cinema plays simultaneously with the desire for totalization and its impossibility.
  • Its unspeakability is no doubt linked to the desire to make it a corporeal experience, a matter of touching, feeling, tasting, as well as seeing. Yet, the historical trajectory of classical cinema was to defeat that body by annihilating its space, its ability to act as a measure of scale. Photogénieis usually referred to as one of the earliest examples of cinéphilia, a love of the cinema that insists upon its uniqueness and its ability to induce a form of incomparable ecstasy.

Deleuze and Diagram in the Architectural Point of View

Reference: Ben van Berkel and Caroline Bos, ‘Diagrams: Interactive Instruments in Operation’, in This Is Not Architecture: Media Constructions (London; New York: Routledge, 2002)

  • Architecture still articulates its concepts, design decisions and processes almost exclusively by means of a posteriori rationalisations.
  • The compulsive force of legitimising arguments still dominates contemporary debate,
  • Since architecture – at least in the open, democratic, Western society in which we work – now results from a highly institutionalised, cooperative process in which clients, investors, users and technical consultants all take part, ➡︎ 이건 건축만은 아닐 것이다.
  • The frustrating result is that there is hardly any real architectural theory to be found, despite the diversity of practices at work today and despite a hugely expanded volume of architectural publications. There is only after-theory.

건축 스케치의 종류

  • 버블 다이아그램 for relationship mapping (space and its function)
  • Designing the outer form of the built environment
  • figure ground (Black and white) for volumetric analysis

Architecture as social discursive practice

  • Looking into diagrammatic procedures is one way to partially open that door and to dislocate the protective and constrictive barriers that architecture has raised to hide its vulnerable centre.
  • a diagrammatic technique presents an opportunity to examine the social-discursive aspect of architectural practice from within.
    • 이것이 꼭 소셜 디스커시브인걸까? Relation discursive 가 될 수 있지 않을까?
  • Their function is to regulate production, consumption and distribution of texts within a particular field of interest. Discursive practices cannot very well be seen as separate from the social framework in which they take place,
    • ::이 부분에서 주장이 조금 튼튼하지 않아보이는 것에 대해서 한번 써보는 것은 나쁘지 않을듯.::
  • The challenge for the next generation of architects is to acknowledge and analyse the internal discourse, which from a social- discursive viewpoint is far more comprehensive than the methodological process that is the basis of current design practice, and to find a theory of the real in that.
  • There are different interpretations of the diagram, which occupy different positions on the sliding scale between subjectivity and objectivity.
  • its imagery and the ways in which it instrumentalises concepts of organisation.3

Meaning of the diagram

  • More to the point is the general understanding of the diagram as a statistical or schematic(개요 도식적인) image.
  • In its most basic and historical definition, the diagram is understood as a visual tool designed to convey ‘as much information in five minutes as would require whole days to imprint on the memory’. ::4::
    • * J. Krausse, ‘Information at a Glance: On the History of the Diagram’, OASE(SUN Nijmegen, 1998). Krausse here quotes William Playfair, architect of the contemporary diagram, whose book The Commercial and Political Atlas(1786) introduced economic curve diagrams and bar charts.
  • ::Diagrams are best known and understood as reductive machines for the compression of information.::
  • 최근 건축에서 다이아그램의 사용법
    • diagrams can also be used as proliferating machines.
    • thus transforming the diagram’s conventional significance.
    • For architecture,
    • the diagram conveys an unspoken essence, disconnected from an ideal or an ideology, that is random, intuitive, subjective, not bound to a linear logic, that can be physical, structural, spatial or technical.
    • architecture has been encouraged by the writ- ing of Gilles Deleuze, who described the virtual organisation of the diagram as an abstract machine.

들뢰즈의 압스트랙 머신

  • Architecture similarly oscillates between the world of ideas and the physical world,
  • Deleuze offers at least three versions of the diagram:
    • via Michel Foucault,
    • via Francis Bacon and
    • via Marcel Proust.
  • 이들 사이의 차이점을 알아보고자 하는 거서이 아니다.
    • Instead of recognising three ‘versions’ of the diagram, we should instead speak of moods or tonalities, for what strikes us is that three deeply significant aspects of the diagram are conveyed in three very different modes.
    • 다른 스테이지들
      1. Associated with Foucault: how the figure of the diagram is not representational.
        1. Panopticon is ‘the diagram of a mechanism of power reduced to its ideal form … a figure of political technology’. ::5::
          1. Michel Foucault, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison (New York: Vintage Books, 1979).
        2. It conveys the spatial organisation of a specific form of state power and discipline.
        3. cannot be reduced to a singular reading; ::like all diagrams, the Panopticon is a manifold.::
        4. Typically, when a diagram breeds new meanings these are still directly related to its substance; its tangible manifestation.
        5. ::Critical readings of previous interpretations are not diagrammatic.::
        6. a diagram is a diagram because it is stronger than its interpretations.
        7. Foucault introduced the notion of the diagram as an assemblage of situations, techniques and functionings made solid, he put the emphasis more on the strategies that form the diagram than on its actual format.
        8. For him, the diagram is interesting not as a paradigmatic example of a disciplinary technology, but as an abstract machine that ‘[makes no] distinction within itself between a plane of expression and a plane of content’. ::6::
          1. Gilles Deleuze, A Thousand Plateaus, trans. Brian Massumi (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987), p. 141.
        9. ‘The diagrammatic or abstract machine does not function to represent even something real, but rather constructs a real that is yet to come.’ ::7::
          1. Gilles Deleuze, Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation, trans. Daniel W. Smith (unpublished manuscript), p. 55. [Since the original publication of the present essay, this has been published (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992).]
        10. it is about ‘the real that is yet to come’.
      2. Bacon; as we mentally take up the paintbrush we simultaneously engage in an earthy and lighthearted, playful debate about the selection and application of the diagram
      3. Proust; the interaction of time and matter is introduced, without which there can be no transformation. 여기서는 뮤지컬 턴,

Tools against typologies, 클리쉐와의 싸움

  • 리프레젠테션 테크닉은 implies 우리가 컨셉츄얼 포지션에서 리얼리티에 집중하여 아이디어와 폼의 관계를 고정시키도록 한다. A representational technique implies that we converge on reality from a conceptual position and in that way fix the relationship between idea and form, between content and structure.
    • it cannot escape existing typologies 유형학, 표상 상징.
  • An instrumentalising technique such as the diagram delays typological fixation.
    • How this is done is a trivial question for many techniques, but a vital one for what we call an instrumentalising technique ➡︎ The role of the diagram is to delay typology and advance a design by bringing in external concepts in a specific shape: ::as figure, not as image or sign.:: ➡︎ 베이컨?
      • ‘is a violent chaos in relation to figurative givens, but is a germ of rhythm in relation to the new order of painting’. ::8::
        • * Deleuze, Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation, p. 55.
      • 들뢰즈에 따르면 페인팅은 언제나 클리쉐와의 싸움을 마주한다. perpetual (영원한) fight
      • even the reactions against clichés are creating clichés.’ ::9::
        • * Deleuze, Francis Bacon: The Logic of Sensation, p. 49.
    • The selection and application of a diagram has a certain directness.

Instrumentalising the diagram 기구화[도구화]하다

  • 베이컨은 꼴라쥬를 통해 직접적으로 unmediated 클리쉐를 방해하지 않고 대신 instrumentalist effectuated 했다.
  • At this point the third meaning of the diagram, which confirms and facilitates the previous two, emerges: the triggering of the abstract machine. The abstract machine must be set in motion for the transformative process to begin,
    • 어떻게 다이아그램을 움직이게 하나? 어떻게 압스트랙 머신이 triggered되나?
      • Deleuze offers an indication by pointing at the novelistic treatment of time. Through Proust’s novel run, long lines of musicality, passion, pictoriality and other narrative lines that coil around lack roles within the story,
      • What exactly is the principle that effectuated the changes and thus formation that we find in real life and real time? Furthermore, how can we isolate this principle and render it to the dimensions that make it possible to grasp and use at will?

Faciality: the operational dream.

  • 이 글에서 어떻게 프루스트의 블랙홀을 건축학적 다이아그램에 적용시킬 수 있는가 질문한다.
    • One of our current projects is structured as a diagram of faciality.

      Klein bottle


  • The abstract machine in motion is a discursive instrument;
    • it is both a product and a generator of dialogical actions which serve to bring forth new, unplanned, interactive meanings.
    • Discourse theory introduces the notion that meanings are not transferred from one agent to another but are constituted in the interaction between the two agents. Likewise, the architectural project is created in this intersubjective field.
  • Diagrams, rich in meaning, full of potential movement, loaded with structure, turn out to be located in a specific place after all.
  • Understood as activators that help trigger constructions that are neither objective nor subjective, neither before-theory nor after-theory, neither conceptual not opportunist,
  • ::the location of the diagram is in the intersubjective, durational and operational field where meanings are formed and transformed interactively.::


Where is My World?

In my childhood, computer game was a fixed space, without time or location. There was an event, and game items, but it was a fixed spacetime. During the game, I was able to divide the space inside the computer and the real physical space. As much physical time was frozen, computer game space was frozen as well, despite flowing and moving images. One event or one story continued endlessly, and spacetime repeated until my character beat the last monster where the character died again and again. It was a space of the death rather than a space to survive. The endless death represented the passage of time, and how many hours of character life has left represented how much time has passed.
We now watch the movie through computers, mobile phones, or other devices like the iPad. But movie space is no different. Even though there is no room for me to interrupt in the movie, except little mouse and remote control (but can we say it is real interruption? Even in the movie theatre, I can just rush out from the black box) through ending credits, I can feel that one event has ended and another block of time has passed.
The events never end. The small spaces are repeated without end.
Perhaps this is where my research question began. How many pieces of events, time, and space can coexist? How can this schizophrenic space have a relationship or construction? If I am no longer just an observer but an active user or producer, where is my position in this network?
The start was perhaps mechanical eyes, as Dziga Vertov’s work, it was camera vision, giving the third gaze to the division of culture and nature. Through the mechanical eyes, the human world is no longer culture, and no wild animal world is nature, and two worlds are merged as a third spacetime on the screen. It is not the question of real or virtual anymore, but how many worlds we have or we can have now. As much human exist on the earth new world is created. Then, where is my world? What is my world?
I look at my room. My room is the maximum size of the world that I can compose and perceive as a physical reality, that is the limit of the range of action I can perceive. “We no longer know what is imaginary or real, physical or mental, in the situation, not because they are confused, but because we do not have to know and there is no longer even a place from which to ask” (Cinema 2 7 ). The moment I leave my home, the spacetime of the world is indiscernible its size and scope. The moment I become more than my house, I only reconstruct them through the abstracted notions. If, as Deleuze says, movement-image and time-image have represented time indirectly and directly with the movement of active actants and the observation of actants, I can no longer do both. I’m just looking at a network of relationships that I am part of it.
I recognise the ground that I am standing on, but the relationship with that ground is not connected to how I construct them. The village I live in is not made up of the networks I have created. Postcodes, addresses, and street name indicate how this place connected with the Country, Korea. It has already been set up, and I only can borrow or use that same code to place myself in it.
Isn’t this too passive? What role do I play? Am I not too passive? Will I be satisfied with this set of my position? Will I be happy with the time of piled up characters’ death? How can I construct my time and space?
The practice, for me, is active participation. I do not passively place me on the network. I am concerned. I connect my network. Eisenstein repositioned history. Vertov repositioned the human eye. The two approaches are very different but desires toward the same direction. The two directors pursued a transition from a passive position to an active, and for both, it was reconstruction through the practice of editing. It is Eisenstein’s way of seeing the past, rather than the additive effect from the editing technique that causes emotional ecstasy. He chose to become a producer and observer himself while making films. I am a producer and an observer.

No more posts.