Looks like some interesting content (though Deleuze is boring at this point). I’ll try to read some of it tonight.
Rockhill’s essay on Godard’s image archeology is great.
@ Bobby
You would like that article:
“We won the day in having it acknowledged in principle that a film by Hitchcock, for example, is as
important as a book by Aragon. Film auteurs, thanks to us, have finally
entered the history of art.”
Modernism as a Misnomer:Godard’s Archeology of the Image/Gabriel Rockhill
Yeah, this is actually a pretty good read.
I like it more for Rockhill trying to investigate what’s really “modern” about Godard. How he discovers the new, or better yet the present, through the old.
Thanks. This looks truly teriffic.
@ Bobby
Yeah, Rockhill is bringing TS Elliot, Baudelaire and others to show the importance of the historical narrative.
Eliot similarly lampoons the deferential attitude of those who would make
tradition into a model to be blindly repeated. In yet another apparent
paraphrase of Baudelaire’s “rational and historical theory of beauty,” he
writes of the poet: “He must be quite aware of the obvious fact that ART NEVER IMPROVES, but that the material of art is never quite the same.” Modernity,
understood according to the dual imperative outlined by Baudelaire and
performatively appropriated by Eliot, is not a rejection of the past in the
name of the new. It is the recognition of the historicity of art and the attempt
to propose a novel configuration of the relationship between the present and
the past, the temporal and the atemporal, that avoids enthroning one at the
expense of the other..
This is an article to be referenced in discussions; especially when people are kvetching about originality.
It also points out how important the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of a piece of work is.
Re Godard:
His “genius,” as Baudelaire claims for genius in general, is a matter of voluntarily rediscovering childhood in all of its simplicity, but childhood bequeathed with a means of expression and analysis.
A fucking treasure trove of insight !
In other words, are you saying I should bring this bit into Tarantino threads as ammunition? I also loved that part about “art never improves, but the matraial of art is never quite the same.”
Yes, re Tarantino – can you get them to read it so that it matters?
It is great read because it covers so much history.
Also stressing the importance of a canon to elevate film to high art- haha a few generations later people are trying to kick out that foundation.
Not much of a chance. People dig in their heels where Tarantino is involved. They wouldn’t entertain associating a theoretical piece with his work. As if that automatically gives him credit or makes him worth spending time on.
I didn’t care so much for the piece on the pedagogy of the written word. Too much philosophical speculation that didn’t seem to lead anywhere. Rockhill’s is a bit more rigorous and yes, it covers a great deal of history deftly.
Rockhill’s piece is very earthy – lots of stuff discussed here at MUBI.
He uses basic definitions such as for modernism, which we can all relate to.
I introduced it to another thread and that ended the thread.
lol
Maud's Son
In French and Francophone Philosophy, check it out:
http://www.jffp.org/ojs/index.php/jffp/issue/current
If you like it, there is a mailing list you can join to get the latest nfo on JLG.