201904151314 Camera Obscura, Camera Lucida

Annette Michelson

Malcolm Turvey – Introduction {Allen:2003ku}

Mid 1960s Creating a ‘crisis of criticism’

  1. Creating a ‘crisis of criticism’
    • 새롭게 따오르는 미니멀리스트 조각, 필름, 그리고 댄스, Michelson diagnosed this ‘crisis of criticism’ to be the result of what she called Minimalism’s ‘apodictic’ character (RM 13; AP 56), which resisted the traditional ‘critical techniques’ of ‘aesthetic metaphor, gesture, or statement’ (RM 13).
    • 데리다를 미국에 소개시킴과 함께 시작된
    • 그리하여 떠오른 새로운 방식의 필요성 In order to do justice to Minimalism’s ‘resistance to semantic function’ (AP 55), a whole new repertory of technique and conceptual frameworks were needed by critics.
    • 대표적으로 분석한 the three major Minimalist media: Morris (sculpture, 1969), Michael Snow (film, 1971), Yvonne Rainer (dance, 1974).
    • Idealist (관념론자) ➡ Pollock or a Kline 과 다른 Minimalism (more general trend toward questioning the ‘sovereignty’ of subjectivity that was also evident in contemporary French thought.
    • 큐브릭에 대한 해석 “Bodies in Space. {Michelson:1969ti}”
  2. 미니멀리즘을 이해하기 위한 크리틱의 한계점을 극복하기 위한 새로운 아트에 대한 이해, 새로운 해석의 파라다임 을 주장.
    • “for us, after all, the conditions of experience, of perception and apperception, eliciting, within our culture, a response to those perceptions which is cognitive. Our perception of the work of art informs us of the nature of consciousness. This is what we mean when we say – as I do say – that, although art no longer means or refers, it does have a deeply cognitive function. (Michelson, A., 1979. About Snow. October, 8, p 57.)
    • 모리스의 작업은 관습적인 미학적인 관점의 ‘synthesized virtual space’ 로서의 조각 오브젝트와 비미학적인 ‘operational’ 공간으로의 뮤지엄과 갤러리 — 혹은 어떤 실재 환경 “ we live and act” — 와의 구별을 전복 시킨다.

Box with the Sound of its Own Making” by Robert Morris

  • 미쉘슨이 주장한 모리스의 작업”Corner Piece”은 스펙테이터에게 질문을 던지고 있다. 시간성은 “인간의 인지와 미적경험의 컨디션 혹은 미디엄이며”, “안다 (퐁티의 말을 빌려)”라는 것은 몸이 주어진 환경에서 작용한다는 것이다.”
    • Vertov의 Man with a Movie Camera은 또한 is to transform his camera ‘from a Magician into an Epistemologist,’ from a tool of illusion into a tool of enlightenment, through a ‘revelation, an exposure of the terms and dynamics of cinematic illusionism.’ MM
    • 미쉘슨의 성취엔 새로운 “해석 interpretation”에만 있지 않다 ( ➡ art is conceived of as prompting reflection on philosophical topics on the part of the spectator, was invented by her ex nihilo ➡ 서양적 해석 ➡ enlightenment 의 관점에서 나온 해석: true knowlege는 그 자신에 대한 질문에서 나오며 아트는 “질문”하는 것에 도움을 준다).
    • for example, see it as a broadening of Brechtian (art is conceived of as occasioning in the spectator a reflection on socio-political realities ) and Greenbergian (medium-specific properties) ‘reflexive’ models of art.
    • 미쉘슨 has shown that art can potentially do a lot more than ‘express’ the ‘personality’ of its author.
    • Bordwell 의 질문: 무엇이 미적 지각과 비미적 종류들을 구별하는가? ‘What, then, distinguishes aesthetic perception and cognition from the nonaesthetic variety?
      In our culture, aesthetic activity deploys such skills for nonpractical ends. In experiencing art, instead of focusing on the pragmatic results of perception, we turn our attention to the very process itself. What is nonconscious in everyday mental life becomes consciously attended to’ (Bordwell, Narration in the Fiction Film [Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985], p. 33)”.
    • 미쉘슨은 Modernism의 특정 모델에 주목한다. one in which the function of advanced art is of necessity to philosophise due to modernism’s ‘elevation of doubt to an esthetic principle’ (CK 59)
    • 이 모델은 두가지 form의 구별에 영향을 받았다.
      ‘secular’ type (accepts the impossibility of theological or metaphysical certainty as the modern condition) ‘religious’ or ‘idealist’ type (searches for aesthetic substitutes for the theological certainties lost in a secular age.)
    • 이 모델에 따르면, 모더니스트들의 리얼리즘과 19세기 중반의 “모방”에 대한 거부는 크리스챤에서 secular 사회로의 전환으로 인한 ‘서양의 형이상학의 침몰’의 결과였다.
    • 결국 모더니스트들은 정해진 모방적인 질서적인 리얼리티에 대해 더 이상 관심이 없었다. 대신 그들은 지각안의 the nature of reality, the nature of consciousness을 주제로 삼았다.
    • 이 모델은 추상 표현주의 ➡

Cinema

  • has seemed to almost every major avant-garde movement to instantiate its aspirations:

There is a special sense in which almost all the major authentic movements and styles of this century – Futurism, Surrealism, Dadaism, Constructivism – reacted to the growth of cinema. Each fresh revision of esthetic and social values staked its claim upon film, claiming as well that its aspirations and energies subsumed and articulated a filmic ontology. Thus [for example], the early developments of montage spoke to Surrealists as the conjoining of disparate objects in the synthesis of Lautréaumont’s Encounter, rendering concrete and vivid that Encounter as the primary mode of consciousness. (RH 49-50)

  • Cinema’s freedom — freedom to question, like the philosopher or scientist, the order of things, a freedom rooted in the ‘crisis in the Western metaphysical tradition,’ best allows the artist to philosophise, to ‘elevate doubt to an aesthetic principle,’ to question ‘the nature of reality, the nature of consciousness in and through perception.’

Cinema reintroduces not only ‘lived reality,’ but an entirely new and seemingly limitless range of structural relationships allowing for the reconciliation of ‘lived reality’ with ‘artistic form’. (CK 58-59)

  • 미쉘슨은 시네마가 관객을 모더니스트들이 다른 미디아에서 이끌어오던 철학적 주제를 가장 잘 고무 시킬수 있는 미디엄이라고 보았다.
    Cinema is the preeminent modernist medium
  • Bordwell 그녀는 의해 아방가르드 시네마는 모던 아트 크리틱과 역사의 한 부분으로 연구 되는데 도움을 주었으며 그녀는 반드시 모더니즘의 콘텍스트 안에서 해석 해야한다고 믿었다. Bordwell again, ‘her philosophically informed essays [have] helped make the study of avant-garde film part of modern art criticism and history. ’
  • 그러나 스트럭쳐리스트는 소쉬르의 언어적 이론을 기반으로 하고 있으므로 미쉘슨 시대의 아트를 해석하기엔 적합하지 않다고 생각했다.
  • According to Michelson, however fashionable, Structuralist theory, rooted in Saussurian linguistics, was unsuitable for the criticism of advanced art of the moment, because of that art’s apodicity, its resistance to ‘any notion of code and message in [its] stubborn claim for autonomy, immediacy, and absoluteness’ (AS 51).

  • There are cinematic works which present themselves as analogues of consciousness in its constitutive and reflexive modes, as though inquiry into the nature and processes of experience had found in this century’s art form, a striking, a uniquely direct presentational mode. The illusionism of the new, temporal art reflects and occasions reflection upon, the conditions of knowledge; it facilitates a critical focus upon the immediacy of experience in the flow of time. (TS 172)

  • 미쉴슨이 주로 연구 했던 필름 메이커들은 Snow, Cornell, Duchamp, Rainer, Eisenstein, Warhol
  • For example, the reason she views Snow’s Wavelength as a ‘masterpiece’ is, in part, because of the fact that it is a ‘grand metaphor for narrative form’ (TS 175; 176), thereby overcoming the rupture between narrative and non-narrative.

  • Vertov: The function of Three Songs of Lenin, according to Michelson, is ‘not only to commemorate’ Lenin, but to ‘definitively inter’ him, ‘to block the return of the dead (the stone set over the grave to impede the corpse’s return’ (KI 38). It ‘inserts, within our experience of lived time, the extratemporality of death’ through slow motion and freeze-frame (KI 32):
  • Eisenstein(secular) and Vertov(idealist) : Both employ the cinema to escape ordinary human perception and conscious- ness, but they do so with the eminently secular intention of helping human beings to gain greater knowledge about, and thereby mastery over, reality.

Modernism

  • 그녀의 matyoure work는 미니멀리스트와 (Morris, Riner) 시작했지만, 그녀는 한가지 부분을 idealist와 공유했다. : the desire for transcendence, for escape from the limits of the merely human, the earthly, the corporeal, the ordinary, the ‘here and now,’ in search of forms of certainty and knowledge unavailable in quotidian human existence. (WH 62)
  • Vertov 와 Eisenstein을 idealist와 secular의 갭을 이어주는 것으로 볼 수 있다. 모더니스트의 1920의 에덴 ‘the revolutionary aspirations of the modernist movement in literature and the arts on the one hand, and of a Marxist or Utopian tradition on the other.’ 을 바랬다. greater knowledge of and power over reality,
  • 그런 이유로 the journal she starts with Rosalind Krauss in 1976 after Eisenstein’s film October, a work that celebrates the ‘manner in which aesthetic innovation may be a vector in the process of social change’ (AO 3).
  • The cinema, Michelson argues, was the last and most powerful of the ‘philosophical toys’ of a bygone era (OE), ones that grant their users a ‘ludic sovereignty’ over the universe, or features of it, such as the laws of space and time (WH 65).

Comment:

우리가 보는 곳과 우리가 생활하는 곳 그리고 우리가 반응하는 것이 동일화 되었을 때. 그곳이 바로 real이 아닌가?


Reference:

Allen, R. & Turvey, M., 2003. Camera Obscura, Camera Lucida, Amsterdam University Press.

AS ‘About Snow,’ October 8 (Spring 1979), pp. 111-25.

AP ‘Art and the Structuralist Perspective,’ in On the Future of Art (New York: Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, a Viking Compass Book, 1970), pp. 37-59.

AO: 1976. About October. October, 1, pp.3–5.

CK: Michelson, A., 1969. Bodies in Space. Artforum, 7, pp.1–32. Available at: https://www.artforum.com/print/196902/bodies-in-space-film-as-carnal-knowledge-36517.

CL ‘Camera Lucida/Camera Obscura,’ Artforum XI, no. 5 (January 1973), pp. 30-37.

FR: ‘Film and the Radical Aspiration’ (1966), reprinted in Film Culture Reader, ed. P. Adams Sitney (New York: Praeger, 1970; reprinted New York: Cooper Square Press, 2000), pp. 404-22.

KI: Michelson, A., 1990. The Kinetic Icon in the Work of Mourning: Prolegomena to the Analysis of a Textual System. October, 52, p.16.

OE: ‘On the Eve of the Future: The Reasonable Facsimile and the Philosophical Toy,’

October 29 (Summer 1984), pp. 3-20.

RM: Robert Morris: The Aesthetic of Transgression, exhibition catalogue (WashingtonD.C.: Corcoran Gallery of Art, 1969), pp. 7-75.

TS ‘Toward Snow (Part I),’ Artforum IX, no. 10 (June 1971), pp. 30-37.

WH:

No more posts.