## Victor Burgin (2020). *Nagori: Writing with Barthes* . Author(s): [[Authors/Victor Burgin]] Zotero Link: [Nagori: Writing with Barthes](zotero://select/items/@burgin_nagori_2020) Index: ### Related ### Summary: Nagori란 단어를 시작으로 [[Victor Burgin|Burgin]]은 shattered environment에서의 구체적인 실천과 쓰기의 정치에 대해 이야기한다. 그가 지칭하는 것들은 사진도 아니고 필름도 아니며 3rd 적인 무엇인가이다. 하지만 그것은 분산되어 있어 설명하기 어려운 것이며 [[@burgin_remembered_2004]]에서 그가 마지막으로 질문하였듯이 설명할 수 없는것의 ideology를 쓸 수 있는가와 연결되어 있는 듯 하다. 하지만 전반적으로 이 글쓰기는 이해하기 어렵다. 아마추어가 새로운 간극을 만들고 그들만의 rhythm 을 만들어나간다 그렇게 원래 존재하는 common sense를 이겨야한다고 주장하는 것은 알겠지만 하나하나가 말이 되지만 전반적으로 어떻게를 시도한 것 치고는 알맹이가 없다. ### Notes: #### Nagori 나고리에 대한 설명: 어원은 물결에 남은 것들을 지칭하며 Ryoko Sekiguchi 가 설명한 시적 의미의 Nagori를 사용하고 있다. > "In a book of 2018 the poet and translator Ryoko Sekiguchi writes: ==‘The object of nagori can be a place, a person, or a season, or again objects or acts evocative of these things’.==” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 167] 20세기가 끝나갈 쯤 사진과 industrial film은 모두 objects of nagori가 되었다. - [I] 이는 여러 형태의 영화의 죽음과 연결되는 듯하다. 그러므로 [[Victor Burgin|Burgin]]은 모든 것들의 죽음을 반은 인정하고 있는 듯하며 새로운 설명하지 못할 것의 이론을 말하고자 하는 듯하다. - 그 예시로 - 1996년 [[Susan Sontag]] 시네필리아의 죽음 - 1999년 [[Rosalind Krauss]]의 ‘can only be viewed through the undeniable fact of its own obsolescence’ [[@krauss_reinventing_1999|Rosalind E Krauss (1999) Reinventing the Medium]] - 1999년 [[Francesco Casetti|Casetti]] 의 필름은 더이상 고유의 장소를 가지지 못하고 everywhere하다는 주장 그러므로 현재 여전히 필름과 사진에 대해 이야기하고 있는 사람들은 [[nagori]]를 모으는 사람들이다. > "The critic who today still speaks of ‘film’ and ‘photography’ is of necessity both beachcomber and bricoleur, selectively ==assembling her or his unavoidably partial object from fragments gathered along the tide line on the shores of digital technology==” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 168] I #### AMATEUR = 아마추어 = doxa에서 벗어난 집단, doxa = commercial place = stupidity, vulgarity, vanity, worldliness 바르트에게 있어서 아마추어는 frozen dignity of a concept도 아니고 homogeneity of a notion도 아니다. Mobility를 가진 존재 > "Barthes posits an ideal of amateur practice situated apart from the hierarchical space of conspicuous consumption, the place of egoism and narcissism, the hysterical show of fashion and advertising, all the parade he summarizes as: ‘stupidity, vulgarity, vanity, worldliness, nationality, normality’.” ^[Empire of Sign, 9] [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 169] 그리고 이러한 아마추어와 Genshiken 을 연결하여 서양과 같은 경제적으로 비슷한 neoliberal 사회라도 문화적 프로덕션과 소비의 관계가 다를 수 있다는 것을 시사한다. #### Obtuse [[Roland Barthes|Barthes]]의 [[studium]] 과 [[punctum]] 그리고 [[@barthes_third_1987|Roland Barthes (1987) The Third Meaning: Research notes on some Eisenstein stills]]에서 언급한 *obvious* 와 *obtuse* Obvious->covers the semantic area previously occupied by denotation and connotation, now as a ‘supplementary=punctum’ third meaning in that which ‘intellection cannot succeed in absorbing’ 바르트에게 있어서 사진은 filmic time을 벗어던진다. 그리고 그에게 있어 미래의 영화는 '움직이는 것이 아니라, 진단적 지평선, 구성의 가능성이없는 단순한 사진이나 비유적 그림이 아닌 그들의 어느 쪽도 추측할 수 없는 세 번째 의미에 놓여 있는 '미래의 영화'를 구상하고 있습니다. > "Thierry Kuntzel imagines: ‘a virtual film ... where all the elements would be present at the same time ... each endlessly referring to the others’” ^[Kuntzel, Thierry (2006) Note sur l’appareil filmique. In: Title TK: Notes 1974–1992. Paris: Anarchive 3, p. 114. The text was originally written as a textual analysis of a fragment from Chris Marker’s La Jete ́ e.] 하지만 [[Victor Burgin|Burgin]]이 보기에 이런 영화는 이미 있다. > There are other ‘arts’ which combine still (or at least drawing) and story, diegesis – namely the photo-novel and the comic-strip. I am convinced that these ‘arts’, born in the lower depths of high culture, possess theoretical qualifications and present a new signifier (related to the obtuse meaning). ...There may thus be a future – or a very ancient past – truth in these derisory, vulgar, foolish, dialogical forms of consumer subculture. [@barthes_third_1987, 66] > 스틸(혹은 적어도 그림)과 스토리, 즉 사진 소설(photo-novel)과 코믹 스트립을 결합한 다른 '예술'이 있습니다. 저는 이러한 '예술'이 높은 문화의 낮은 깊이에 태어나 이론적 자격을 갖추고 (무딘 의미와 관련된) 새로운 상징을 제시한다고 확신합니다.따라서 이러한 조소적이고 저속하며 어리석은 대화형 형태의 소비자 하위 문화에는 미래 또는 매우 오래된 과거가 있을 수 있습니다. 바르트의 이러한 관점은 이전까지 간과되었던 representational practices=‘dialogical forms of consumer subculture’를 재평가할 수 있도록 하지만 새로운 매체 특정 학문적 지역들의 창조는 그러한 '희망적인/비열?derisory' 형태가 어떻게 '미래의 영화'를 예고하는지 생각하는 데 방해가 된다고 주장한다. > "One effect of the technological innovations that prompted the last of these research areas has been to blur the boundaries between those that preceded it.” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 172-3] > "For example, the truly revolution- ary event in the recent history of image production was not the arrival of digital cameras as such but rather the broadband connection of these cameras to the internet. In this case, as in others, the substantive cultural and historical impact lies not in the digital mode of production but in the virtual mode of reception” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 7] > "in an abrupt lateral departure from the established track” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 7] > "If an object of study is nevertheless to be discerned within this field it can only be through a radical revision of what constitutes an object.” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 7] > "The figural, as Rodowick develops the concept from its origins in the work of Jean-François [[Jean-François Lyotard|Lyotard]], might be described as a space between images and words” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 7] > "‘The figural defines a semiotic regime where the ontological distinction between linguistic and plastic represen- tations breaks down’.” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 7] > "Rodowick urges the necessity of ‘tracing out what Modern philosophy has systematically excluded or exiled: incommensurable spaces, nonlinear dynamics, temporal complexity and heterogeneity, logic unruled by the principle of noncontradiction’.” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 8] > "Louis Althusser” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 8] > "specifically: ‘Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of exist- ence’.” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 8] > "[[Bernard Stiegler]] argues that global ‘media’ industries – film, television, advertising, video games and popular music – now produce an ‘ecology of the mind’ (e´cologie de l’esprit]” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 8] > "Enigmatically incomplete fragmentary signifiers – from the real world, from media images,” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 8] > "from memory and fantasy – may be woven into delusional construc- tions of convincing realism.” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 9] > "it concerns the possibilities of ‘configuration within a diagetic horizon’” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 9] #### Rhythm > "As a mosaic of heterogeneous fragments gathered in the wake of Barthes’ death, the 2002 book How to Live Together41 has an air of nagori about it.” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 9] > "Beyond its religious significance, the word idiorrhythmy seduces Barthes by its capacity to give a verbal form to a fantasy ... : the dream of a life at once solitary and collective, of a happy timing where the rhythm of the individual harmonises with that of the community” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 10] > "Today’s Marxists are more likely to concur with Chantal Mouffe’s conclusion that ‘one can no longer speak of ‘‘the people’’ as a unified and homogeneous entity’.” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 10] > "In a 1987 talk to film students, Gilles Deleuze cites the painter Paul Klee’s remark, ‘You know, the people are missing’, and comments: ‘There is no work of art that does not make an appeal to a people that does not yet exist” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 10] > "There are two ways we may understand this appeal – as nostalgia for a classic Marxist teleology that foresees the end of ideology in an inevitable future communist society, or as work under- taken in present reality in which one acts as if that reality might be otherwise.” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 10] > "The haiku therefore represents a fleeting state of apprehension of the real that is uniquely individual but nevertheless composed within the horizon of a world shared in common.” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 10] > "he works to efface himself.” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 11] > "The interstice therefore is a place of perpetual negotiation between resistance to the hegemonic-consensual, and the disappearance of the very agent of that resistance: the subject of the political process itself” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 11] > "Where messianism incites the desire for separation, I try to think practices of the interstice. ...The interstice is not defined against the bloc; it produces its own presence, its own mode of production. It knows that the bloc is certainly not a friend, but it does not define itself through antagonism, or else it would become the mere reflection of the bloc. This does not mean non-conflict. It means conflict when necessary, in the way that is necessary. This is thinking in the interstices.50” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 11] > "as a tentative act of self-authoring in an interstitial space.” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 12] > "Pascal Nicolas-Le Strat observes: ‘Following Henri Lefebvre, we could say that an interstice opens up on several levels of reality and that each of these levels is defined in relation to the others’.” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 12] > "Here, my turn from ‘about’ to ‘with’ (my turn away from the academy] began when I allowed the inaugural image of nagori – fragments gathered on the shore – to suggest that my first paragraph should itself be a fragment, a mise-en- abyme within the essay (in the full etymological sense of the term] that contains it, and when I accepted (without censure] the idea that the number of fragments and the order of their succession be arbitrarily determined by the form of the acrostic, by association with the alpha- betical ordering of the otherwise disconnected parts that make up Roland Barthes by Roland Barthes – a principle of organization in conflict with the academic thesis which, as Barthes puts it, ‘unfolds, like a tablecloth’.” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 13] > "My essay then is ‘interstitial’ in that it is neither fully recognizable as an academic article nor as a work of art. It presents ideas in the manner of the former, but in forms and procedures characteristic of the latter.” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 13] > "Paradoxically, the only way to win any degree of liberty from preformatted conventions and contexts is to be fully aware of the complexity of their determinations, and to open up interstitial spaces within them” [@burgin_nagori_2020, p. 13]