# Victor Burgin (2004). *Introduction: The Noise of the Marketplace*. London: Reaktion. Type:: [[&]] Title:: Introduction: The Noise of the Marketplace Author(s): Victor Burgin Year:: 2004 Tags:: DOI:: Citekey:: burgin_introduction_2004 ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: Introduction: The Noise of the Marketplace](zotero://select/items/@burgin_introduction_2004) ReviewedDate:: [[2022-06-12]] --- ## Citation ```latex [@burgin_introduction_2004] ``` ## Abstract ## Summary of key points > “It is as if one saw a screen with scattered colour-patches, and said: the way they are here, they are unintelligible; they only make sense when one completes them into a shape.—Whereas I want to say: Here is the whole. (If you complete it, you falsify it.) [@wittgenstein_remarks_1988-1, Remark 257] - 기본적으로 [[Roland Barthes|Barthes]]의 이론을 따르고 있으며 전반적인 영화역사도 아우르고 있음 - 비디오의 개발로 그전에는 Outside the film industry는 경험해보지 못한 'freezing' a frame of acetate film or of running a film in reverse가 가능해짐 > “Film studies must now confront as heterogeneous an ‘object’ as that which confounds photography and television studies – in fact it is largely the same object.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 9) > “Unlike externally directed communicative speech, [Lev] Vygotsky writes, inner speech ‘appears disconnected and incomplete’.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 11) Lev Vygotsky, Thought and Language (Cambridge, ma, 1977), p. 139. > “Films are today dislocated and dismantled even without intervention by the spectator.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 8) 한때 영화 경험은 특정 날, 특정 극장에서 내러티브를 유한하게 풀어내는 시공간에 국한되어 있었습니다. 하지만 시간이 지나면서 영화는 더 이상 라이브 연극 공연을 보거나 박물관에서 그림을 감상하는 것처럼 단순히 '관람'하는 것이 아니게 되었습니다. 제가 이전 책 [-@victor_burgin_different_1996, 22-3] 에서 썼던 것처럼 오늘날에도 마찬가지입니다. (여기서 다양하게 경험한다는 것은 필름 밖으로도 트레일러 포스터 blurbs 등등 광고나 클립 리뷰등으로 metonymic fragments in memory, 보지 않았지만 이미 본 것 처럼 익숙해져버리는 경험들도 포함해서 이야기 한다.) - 영화의 공간은 더이상 하나의 것이 아님 -> 이러한 공간은 [[Roland Barthes|Barthes]]가 말한 noise가 합쳐진 disconnected and incomplete cacophony = inner speech 와 닮아있음 -> 다른 예시로는 [[Kubrick]]의 영화 Eyes Wide Shut이 있음 - 불협화음에 대한 경험 = outer noise = involuntary thoughts 과거에는 이미 여러가지 형태를 다 아울러서 [[Cinema]]라고 불렀고 어느 순간 시네마는 영화로만 인식되지 않게 되었다. "Further, cinema in turn follows publicity, magazines, games, television. It no longer has its own place, because it is everywhere, or at least everywhere that we are dealing with aesthetics and communication" [@casetti_theories_1999, 316]. '고전적' 내러티브 영화는 영화의 네거티브, 즉 프레임 너머의 공간을 제거함으로써만 영화 이론의 유일하고 독특한 대상이 되었다. 이는 과거에 설득력 있게 이론화되었던 '오프 스크린 공간'이 아니라, 영화와 일상생활의 다른 이미지 사이를 전환하는 수많은 장소. 무엇보다도 이 문장은 완성된 문장입니다. '내면이라는 이 연설' [@barthes_pleasure_2009, 49]을 언급할 때 바르트는 아마도 '내면의 연설'이라는 표현을 만든 러시아 언어학자 레프 비고츠키 [-@vygotskii_thought_2012]를 암시한 것 같습니다. 비고츠키의 '[[inner speech]]'는 장 피아제가 어린아이의 '자기 중심적 언어 [[egocentric speech]]'라고 부르는 것을 어른이 생존한 것입니다 → 1차 프로세스, 단어보다 이미지, 단어를 이미지 취급 > When Vygotsky notes that in inner speech, ‘a single word is so saturated with sense that many words would be required to explain it in external speech’, [-@vygotskii_thought_2012, 148] 우리는 그가 프로이트가 '응축'이라고 부르는 것과 동일한 메커니즘, 즉 꿈의 풍부한 생각에 비해 꿈을 '간결하게' 만드는 메커니즘을 언급하고 있다고 추측할 수 있습니다. > “The purported ‘disjointedness’ in Kubrick’s film may also be understood as a product of an evolution in ways of narrating in course since the inception of cinema, a once orderly process now producing random mutations in reaction to a changed environment.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 12) ## [[sequence-image]] - 서로 무관한 시공간적 위치에 다양한 요소들이 무작위로 병치되어 있는 미디어 환경과 우리가 일상적으로 마주하는 것은 내면의 언어와 무의식적 연상 같은 '내적' 과정의 형식적 유사체입니다. - 추상적인 간결함의 연속, self-sufficient unification of someone, somewhere and something - the elements: perception and recollections -> not teleological -> rebus - present configuration = lexical (사전적인, 어휘적인), sporadic (산발적인) !! **But truly 'ouside linguistics'** (27) ≠ neither image nor image sequence, belongs neither to film nor to photography - ≠ 60년대 후반 70년대 초반언어적 해석의 [[sequence-image]] ≠ daydream nor delusion - 이걸 설명할 길은 'poeticise' 밖에 없는가 하고 [[Victor Burgin|Burgin]]은 질문한다 > “What remains most true in my account is what is most abstract: the description of a sequence of such brevity that I might almost be describing a still image. Although this ‘sequence-image’ is in itself sharply particular, it is in all other respects vague: uniting ‘someone’, ‘somewhere’ and ‘something’, without specifying who, where and what. There is nothing before, nothing after, and although the action gestures out of frame, ‘somewhere ahead’, it is nevertheless self-sufficient” [@burgin_introduction_2004, 16] ## Other Comments - ## Annotations (12/06/2022, 14:54:16) > “Breaking into and breaking up the film, they upset the set patterns that plot the established moral and political orders of the entertainment form of the [[doxa]].” (Burgin, 2004, p. 8) 요건: 디지털 비디오 에디팅의 발달 > “The subsequent arrival of digital video editing on ‘entry level’ personal computers exponentially expanded the range of possibilities for dismantling and reconfiguring the once inviolable objects offered by narrative cinema” (Burgin, 2004, p. 8) 결과: heterogeneous object가 됨 > “Film studies must now confront as heterogeneous an ‘object’ as that which confounds photography and television studies – in fact it is largely the same object.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 9) [[Francesco Casetti|Casetti]]의, 오랜 시간동안 cinema는 하나의 종류의 film으로 해석되오지 않았으며 그 자신만의 공간이 없어졌고 it is everywhere다는 주장에 따라 'classical' narrative 영화는 과거에 웅변적으로 이론화된 '오프 스크린 공간' “beyond the frame” (Burgin, 2004, p. 10) 이 아니라, 영화와 일상생활의 다른 이미지들 사이의 전환의 모든 장소로부터 형성된 공간인 영화의 부정적인 부분을 제거함으로써 영화 이론의 유일하고 독특한 대상이 되었다. - [I] #comment 이것또한 들뢰즈의 주장 혹은 들뢰즈가 따른 프랑스의 영화 이론과 맥을 함께 하지 않는가? 이와 연결해서 이러한 [[heterogenouse]] 공간을 [[Victor Burgin|Burgin]]은 [[Roland Barthes|Barthes]]가 한 경험, 즉 비몽사몽간에 들었언 들려오던 noise 여러 소리들, 의자, 유리, an entire streophony의 경험을 통해 그가 스스로의 interior speech와 닮았다는 것을 이야기 한 것을 연결시킨다. > “Unlike externally directed communicative speech, Vygotsky writes, inner speech ‘appears disconnected and incomplete’.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 5) ^[Lev Vygotsky, Thought and Language (Cambridge, ma, 1977), p. 139. ] 예시: 큐브릭의 영화 > “The purported ‘disjointedness’ in Kubrick’s film may also be understood as a product of an evolution in ways of narrating in course since the inception of cinema, a once orderly process now producing random mutations in reaction to a changed environment.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 12) 매일매일의 미디어 환경: 연괄되어있지 않은 공간과 시간 location을 across하는 랜덤한 juxtaposition들 = fragmentary *rebus* > “our everyday encounter with the environment of the media is the formal analogue of such ‘interior’ processes as inner speech and involuntary association.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 14) 불협화음에 대한 경험 = outer noise = involuntary thoughts > “Barthes is struck by a homology between the cacophony of the bar and his involuntary thoughts.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 15) > “The phenomena of everyday life form an amalgamated field of broadly isomorphic endogenous and exogenous impressions.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 15) 일상 생활의 현상들은 광범위한 동형 내생적 인상과 외생적 인상으로 융합된 분야를 형성한다. **‘[[sequence-image]]’**: a transitory state of percepts of a ‘present moment’ seized in their association with past affects and meanings” (Burgin, 2004, p. 21) ≠ 60년대 후반 70년대 초반언어적 해석의 [[sequence-image]] ≠ daydream nor delusion > “What remains most true in my account is what is most abstract: the description of a sequence of such brevity that I might almost be describing a still image. Although this ‘sequence-image’ is in itself sharply particular, it is in all other respects vague: uniting ‘someone’, ‘somewhere’ and ‘something’, without specifying who, where and what. There is nothing before, nothing after, and although the action gestures out of frame, ‘somewhere ahead’, it is nevertheless self-sufficient.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 16) > 제 설명에서 가장 진실하게 남아있는 것은 가장 추상적인 것입니다: 제가 거의 정지된 이미지를 묘사하고 있을 수도 있는 그러한 간결함의 연속에 대한 설명입니다. 이 '순차 이미지'는 그 자체로 매우 특별하지만, 다른 모든 면에서 모호하다: 누가, 어디서, 무엇을 명시하지 않고 '누군가', '어디선가', '무엇인가'를 통합한다. 앞에는 아무것도 없고, 뒤에는 아무것도 없으며, 비록 행동이 '앞의 어딘가'라는 틀에서 벗어난 제스처를 취하지만, 그럼에도 불구하고 그것은 자급자족합니다. > “The elements that constitute the sequence-image, mainly perceptions and recollections, emerge successively but not teleologically. The order in which they appear is insignificant (as in a rebus) and they present a configuration – ‘lexical, sporadic’ – that is more ‘object’ than narrative” (Burgin, 2004, p. 21) > 시퀀스 이미지를 구성하는 요소들, 주로 인식과 회상이 순차적으로 나타나지만, 텔레그래프는 그렇지 않다. (리버스와 같이) 나타나는 순서는 중요하지 않으며, 서술보다는 '객체'인 '사적, 산발적' 구성을 나타냅니다. 언어적 해석의 필름은 불가능함 > “In Barthes’ view, a linguistically informed analysis of film could not be concerned with the filmic image as such, which he considered to be pure analogy, but only with the combination of images into narrative sequences. As he expressed it, ‘the distinction between film and photography is not simply a matter of degree but a radical opposition’” (Burgin, 2004, p. 17) 바르트의 견해에 따르면, 언어에 정통한 영화의 분석은 그가 순수한 유추라고 간주한 필름 이미지와 관련될 수 없으며, 단지 이미지를 서술적 시퀀스로 결합하는 것으로만 간주했습니다. 그가 표현했듯이, '영화와 사진의 구별은 단순히 정도의 문제가 아니라 급진적인 반대입니다. Simultaneity and Succession ? The movement by time-image > History painting routinely exhibits this characteristic attribute of the sequence-image: the folding of the diachronic (통시성) into the synchronic (공시적). 어떻게 해야 fragmentary nature를 유지할 수 있을까? -> échelonnement = spacing out = idea of discontinuity, of absences, of gaps > Barthes’ idea of proairetic codes allows us in principle to the ‘spacing’ of the elements that penetrate from outside” (Burgin, 2004, p. 26) secondary revision = narrative > “In this sense, narrative is normally the equivalent of perspective: bridging gaps, it smooths discontinuities into a continuum – much as ‘secondary revision” (Burgin, 2004, p. 27) “I believe that Barthes was simply wrong in asserting that linguistically derived modes of analysis can- not be applied to photographs” (Burgin, 2004, p. 21) “As this object – the sequence-image – is neither image nor image sequence, it belongs neither to film nor to photography theory as currently defined.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 21) “Sometimes I feel that the only adequate way to approach the sequence-image is to write in such a way as to evoke its associative structure, which is to say ‘poeticise’.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 22) “It is as if one saw a screen with scattered colour-patches, and said: the way they are here, they are unintelligible; they only make sense when one completes them into a shape.—Whereas I want to say: Here is the whole. (If you complete it, you falsify it.) Ludwig Wittgenstein1” (Burgin, 2004, p. 7) “Breaking into and breaking up the film, they upset the set pat- terns that plot the established moral and political orders of the entertainment form of the doxa.5” (Burgin, 2004, p. 2) Doxa: The term Barthes appropriates from Aristotle to denote ‘Common Sense, Right Reason, the Norm, General Opinion’. Also it connotes the history after Aristotle “The subsequent arrival of dig- ital video editing on ‘entry level’ personal computers exponentially expanded the range of possibilities for dismantling and reconfiguring the once inviolable objects offered by narrative cinema” (Burgin, 2004, p. 2) “Film studies must now confront as heterogeneous an ‘object’ as that which confounds photography and television studies – in fact it is largely the same object.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 3) “beyond the frame” (Burgin, 2004, p. 4) “Unlike externally directed communicative speech, Vygotsky writes, inner speech ‘appears disconnected and incomplete’.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 5) Lev Vygotsky, Thought and Language (Cambridge, ma, 1977), p. 139. “The purported ‘disjointedness’ in Kubrick’s film may also be under- stood as a product of an evolution in ways of narrating in course since the inception of cinema, a once orderly process now producing random mutations in reaction to a changed environment.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 6) “our everyday encounter with the environment of the media is the formal analogue of such ‘interior’ processes as inner speech and involuntary association.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 8) “fragmen- tary rebus.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 8) “Barthes is struck by a homology between the cacophony of the bar and his involuntary thoughts.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 9) “The phenomena of everyday life form an amalgamated field of broadly iso- morphic endogenous and exogenous impressions.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 9) “These residues are mental images, not necessarily visual (they may be auditory, tactile, olfactory, enactive or kinaesthetic); nevertheless, visual images predominate.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 9) “What remains most true in my account is what is most abstract: the description of a sequence of such brevity that I might almost be describing a still image. Although this ‘sequence-image’ is in itself sharply particular, it is in all other respects vague: uniting ‘someone’, ‘somewhere’ and ‘something’, without specifying who, where and what. There is nothing before, nothing after, and although the action gestures out of frame, ‘some- where ahead’, it is nevertheless self-sufficient” (Burgin, 2004, p. 10) This is his account for the ‘sequence-image’ “The elements that constitute the sequence-image, mainly perceptions and recollections, emerge successively but not teleologically. The order in which they appear is insignificant (as in a rebus) and they present a configuration – ‘lexical, sporadic’ – that is more ‘object’ than narrative” (Burgin, 2004, p. 15) “Nevertheless, for all that unconscious fantasy may have a role in its production, the sequence- image as such is neither daydream nor delusion. It is a fact – a transi- tory state of percepts of a ‘present moment’ seized in their association with past affects and meanings” (Burgin, 2004, p. 15) “The sequence-image is a very different object from that addressed by film studies as the discipline re-emerged in the late 1960s and the ’70s revitalized by a love affair with linguistics” (Burgin, 2004, p. 17) “In Barthes’ view, a linguistically informed analysis of film could not be concerned with the filmic image as such, which he considered to be pure analogy, but only with the combination of images into narrative sequences. As he expressed it, ‘the distinction between film and photography is not simply a matter of degree but a radical opposition’” (Burgin, 2004, p. 17) 바르트의 견해에 따르면, 언어에 정통한 영화의 분석은 그가 순수한 유추라고 간주한 필름 이미지와 관련될 수 없으며, 단지 이미지를 서술적 시퀀스로 결합하는 것으로만 간주했습니다. 그가 표현했듯이, '영화와 사진의 구별은 단순히 정도의 문제가 아니라 급진적인 반대입니다. “simultaneity and succession” (Burgin, 2004, p. 18) “The disjunction of activity and movement was recognized early in the history of painting.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 19) “but in such a way that the fragmentary nature of the experi- ence is retained?” (Burgin, 2004, p. 20) “the ‘spacing’ of the elements that penetrate from outside” (Burgin, 2004, p. 20) The movement by time-image? “échelonnement,” (Burgin, 2004, p. 20) “In this sense, narrative is normally the equivalent of perspective: bridging gaps, it smooths discontinuities into a continuum – much as ‘secondary revision” (Burgin, 2004, p. 21) “I believe that Barthes was simply wrong in asserting that linguistically derived modes of analysis can- not be applied to photographs” (Burgin, 2004, p. 21) “But Barthes on the banquette remarked on a field of experience in which a different kind of object may be discerned: ‘lexical’ but ‘sporadic’ and truly ‘outside linguis- tics’.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 21) “As this object – the sequence-image – is neither image nor image sequence, it belongs neither to film nor to photography theory as currently defined.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 21) “Sometimes I feel that the only adequate way to approach the sequence-image is to write in such a way as to evoke its associative structure, which is to say ‘poeticise’.” (Burgin, 2004, p. 22)