## John Rajchman (2008). *Deleuze's Time, or How the Cinematic Changes Our Idea of Art*. : Tate Publishing. > [!INFO] > Type:: [[]] > Title:: Deleuze's Time, or How the Cinematic Changes Our Idea of Art > Author(s): [[John Rajchman]] > Year:: 2008 > Tags:: > DOI:: > Citekey:: leighton_deleuzes_2008 > ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: Deleuze's Time, or How the Cinematic Changes Our Idea of Art](zotero://select/items/@leighton_deleuzes_2008) > ReviewedDate:: [[2023-08-28]] ## Citation ```latex [@leighton_deleuzes_2008] ``` ## Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@leighton_deleuzes_2008]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` ## Summary - ## Annotation 시네마는 어떻게 아트에 대한 아이디어를 바꾸었나? 이러한 질문은 19세기부터 어떻게 시네마가 우리의 생각을 trnasform 하게 했는가에 것과 관련되어 있다. [[Walter Benjamin]]이 이미 질문했듯 이러한 질문은 모든 질문들과 연결되어있다. [[aesthetics|미학]]적, 정치적 그리고 새로운 mass industrial audiovisual means of film and projection. [[Gilles Deleuze|Deleuze]]는 이러한 질문을 WWII 이후 프랑스의 뉴시네마가 아닌 새로운 스타일의 생각이 부상하기 시작했을 때 이어나갔다. > —a new “image of thought.” The “upheaval in general sensibility” that followed the war would lead to “new dispositions of thought.” ([[@leighton_deleuzes_2008-1]], 283) 그의 책은 80년대에 쓰여졌지만 그가 가장 중심에 놓고 본 작업은 [[Alain Resnais|Resnais]]의 Van Gogh study와 Night and Fog 였다. 그가 생각하는 이미지는 "“What I call Ideas are images that make one think,” ([[@deleuze_two_2006]], 291) Deleuze declared at the start of his study. 그렇기에 “the cinematographic image is never in the present.” ([[@deleuze_two_2006]], 290-1) 그가 생각하는 이미지는 "**“What I call Ideas are images that make one think,”** ([[@deleuze_two_2006]], 291) Deleuze declared at the start of his study. 시네마는 어떤 방식의 idea를 갖는다는 것이며 그것은 새로운 방식으로 우리에게 affecting 하고 또한 nervous system을 건든다. 이러한 시네마 machine은 언제나 inderterminate sensory or [[aesthetics|aesthetic]] monponent through which they participate in larger field. 그리고 이 arrangement의 중심에는 새로운 determination of space and time as forms of sensibility in relation to thinking 이 있다. - For machines, unlike simple mechanisms, always have an indeterminate sensory or [[aesthetics|aesthetic]] component through which they participate in larger fields, larger sorts of arrangements of our senses, our bodies and brains. ([[@leighton_deleuzes_2008-1]], 284) - Central to this arrangement was the invention of new determinations of space and time ([[@leighton_deleuzes_2008-1]], 284) 이러한 새로운 방식의 전후의 감각은 3가지의 부정 negation을 불러온다.([[@deleuze_four_1998]], 28-9) ==이건 좀 확인이 필요할 듯== 이렇다는 것은 이에 대해 가장 크게 영향을 받은 것이 바로 [[References/Authors/Jonas Mekas|Mekas]]일 것이다. 혹은 전후 직접적으로 공간의 분열을 겪은 사람들. 1. determination of a time no longer defined by succession 1. past, present, future 2. a space no longer defined by simultaneity 1. closed or framed space 3. a permanence no longer based in eternity 1. instead as a form of a complex variation. [[Immanuel Kant|칸트]]는 공간과 시간을 직관의 형태들, forms of intuition or as a priori conditions of an aisthesis 혹은 "sensibilia"라고 불렀다. 그러므로 이러한 감각의 형태는 이해의 범주화와 구별되며 그 둘이 연결되는 것은 a mysterious "schematism" or though the "productive imagination"으로만 가능하다고 이야기 한다. The forms of sensation are thus distinct from the categories of the understanding and can only be linked to them through the workings of a mysterious “schematism” or through the “productive imagination.” ([[@leighton_deleuzes_2008]], 285) 들뢰즈가 관심있었던 것은 이해로부터의 이러한 감각의 형태들의 독립이며 그것들이 not the way they figure in a unified consciousness. 그러므로 위의 3가지의 부정은 schematic link로 부터 해방되는 형태로 긍정화 된다. **(2) freeing time from its (1) subordination to the identities of movement in (3) a closed world.** 들뢰즈는 이러한 nonrelation을 [[Marguerite Duras]]와 [[Straub-Huillet]]의 stories without places 와 places without stories를 발견하며 주장한다. 영화를 "신호 물질"이 아니라 언어로 생각하는 것이 왜 그렇게 오도되는지를 보여주는 것은 바로 우리가 보는 것과 말하는 것 사이의 이러한 종류의 "비관계"이다. 그러므로 각각의 작가 혹은 감독이 만들어 내는 것은 sign 혹은 images가 아니라 각자 "foreign language"를 발명 하는 것이다. result of a singular invention - Indeed, it is precisely this sort of “nonrelation” between what we see and what we say that shows why it is so misleading to think of cinema as language, rather than as a “signaletic material.” ([[@leighton_deleuzes_2008]], 286) 시네마틱은 영화 제작자들이 우리의 감각의 형태로 간주되는 공간과 시간이 우리의 이해와 연결되어 있는 도식 ([[Immanuel Kant|칸트]])에서 분리될 때 발생하는 문제를 탐구하기 위해 발명한 이 이상하고 거대한 기호와 이미지의 복합체입니다. 대신에 명제와 진리가 아니라 우리에게 일어나고 있는 일에 대한 감각(그리고 넌센스)의 논리에 의해 지배되는 다른 종류의 사고와 연결되어 있다. ([[@leighton_deleuzes_2008-1]], 286) The cinematic, in short, is this strange, great complex of signs and images that filmmakers invented to explore the problem that arises when space and time, regarded as forms of our sensibilia, are disjoined from the schemata that tie them to our understanding and are linked, instead, to another kind of thinking, governed by logic not of propositions and truths, but of the sense (and non-sense) of what is happening to us.[Rajchman 2010:4](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=4) 영화는 이 "acentered" 상태를 보이거나 만져볼 수 있게 하거나 우리를 그것에 "sensibilize 감수화"하는 이미지에서 발견됩니다. 따라서 영화의 이미지는 확장된 공간에서 번역으로 환원될 수 없는 우리 삶의 이상한 종류의 움직임을 탐구하는 형식입니다. 환경; 따라서 그들은 연대순과 연속성에 기반한 시간이나 지속 기간이 아니라, 서로 맞물리는 토폴로지나 겹치는 연속성을 기반으로 합니다. 그것이 바로 영화가 우리가 실제로 어떻게 생각하는지, 우리가 생각하는 방식, 삶의 방식, 우리 자신과의 관계, 그리고 서로에 대한 관계에서 어떻게 지향되고 방향을 잃어가는가에 대한 질문을 제기한 방법입니다. The cinematic is found in images that make visible or palpable this “acentered” condition or that “sensibilize” us to it. The images in cinema are thus forms that explore a strange sort of movement in our lives that is irreducible to translation in extended space, the lines of which are freed from starting and ending points, instead tracing trajectories, at once fictive and real, in indeterminate milieus; they thus call for a time or a duration based not in chronology and succession, but rather, in an interlocking topology or overlapping seriality. That is how cinema posed the question of how we actually think, how we are oriented and disoriented in thinking, in our lives, our relations with ourselves, and to one another. ([[@leighton_deleuzes_2008]], 287) > Indeed, that is how the “cinematic,” regarded as a way of thinking with the forms of sensibilia, could be seen to extract itself from the great stupefying explosion of images in our lives that mechanical reproduction facilitated (before the “control” of the postwar information-type machines) with its [[cliché]] pictures and ordered words and its relations with propaganda or advertising.[Rajchman 2010:6](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=6) > In cinema, as in philosophy, he discovers something at once inhuman and vital. It is already to be seen in the kind of move- ment Vertov explored through the intervals in his editing or “montage,” or with the ability of the camera to capture “acentered” worlds with “indeterminate” zones[Rajchman 2010:6](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=6) > Cinema not only invents images; it surrounds them with a world—a world that, for Deleuze, has become light or deterritorialized, irreducible to our “being-there.”[Rajchman 2010:6](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=6) > The forms of description and narration, in other words, depend on the role of mobility and indetermination in the images, and so with the sense and non-sense of what is happening.[Rajchman 2010:7](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=7) > The world that cinema shows us is an impersonal (or “pre-personal”) world prior to consciousness and individualization.[Rajchman 2010:7](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=7) > The aim is no longer to recapture or recollect the past in a consciousness, individual or collective, which would have succeeded it, but on the contrary, to prevent any such closure within private memory or public commemoration, showing, rather, the sense in which it is still at work in the present.[Rajchman 2010:8](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=8) > It forms part of a larger complex of images and spaces, where it discovers new roles to play, geared to altered geographies and responding to new forces on a global scale—Deleuze now belongs to World rather than simply European cinema.[Rajchman 2010:9](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=9) > The great filmmakers had used new technical means to invent a mode of an audiovisual way of thinking, which formed part of a larger [[aesthetics|aesthetic]], to which it then seemed important for Deleuze to turn.[Rajchman 2010:9](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=9) > ” Artaud thought that the peculiar “witchcraft” of silent film was much closer to the “cruelty” in gesture and word that he was seeking in the theater, and Deleuze sees this idea as part of a larger invention of “theatricality” peculiar to cinema, as seen in “bodily attitudes” and their relation to time, explored in different ways in many arts.[Rajchman 2010:10](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=10) > In other words, abstract film is not abstract in a simple modernist or self-referential sense, but rather, in the ways it experiments with the very spatiotemporal conditions of sensibilia and thought themselves that the great postwar filmmakers exploited for their own purposes, and in that sense, it is quite concrete.[Rajchman 2010:10](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=10) > there is an exchange or connection made on the basis of common exploration of forms of sensibility, explored at the same time in different ways in many arts at once.[Rajchman 2010:10](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=10) > He was interested in how projection-practices, along with editing and framing, freed themselves from the conventions of “natural perception” (and from the mimetic conception of projection itself) to invent new sorts of images affecting our nervous systems.[Rajchman 2010:12](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=12) > a moving frame with an “out-of-frame” that allows movement and time to be rendered in new ways that would move beyond the concep- tions of space in classical painting or theater, or suggest alternatives to them. Thus Deleuze argues that the relation of cinema to a classical theater-space (and “theatricality”) is poorly posed as a matter of a loss of, or substitution for, live presence; rather, we find a new dispositif for creating images and spaces (and so of “having ideas”) with links or interferences with one another, which are connected to the two great efforts in theater to create new kinds of image and space—Artaud’s theater of cruelty and Brecht’s epic theater, each of which are related to the cinematic exploration of time in “bodily attitudes.”[Rajchman 2010:13](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=13) > Using the techniques of shooting, editing, and projecting, cinema found a pecu- liar way to undercut the divisions between objective and subjective viewpoints, or between the sound- and image-space, to explore other spaces and times, which, even in darkened rooms, can strike our nervous systems in ways that are just as intense or cruel as live performances themselves, which can often seem rather more predictable.[Rajchman 2010:13](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=13) > In this role, it became a laboratory to fabricate creative images—images to free our brains from patterns of clichés or order-words, which in turn serve to control our perceptions and affects, reducing them to eas- ily identifiable opinions.[Rajchman 2010:13](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=13) > Just as the filmic image is not, for Deleuze, a code or a language, but rather, an original way of expressing times and spaces that cannot be contained in natural perception or affection, so filmic-space, even in the darkened room, is more than a simple story- and-illusion apparatus.[Rajchman 2010:13](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=13) > directly affects the brain[Rajchman 2010:13](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=13) > “martyrology” in the struggle to create new images, and why there is so often in cinema the dramatization of a conspiracy against this attempt—an ongoing battle with the institutional forces of mediocrity in which an encounter with the visual arts or visual art-spaces can offer one avenue of escape.[Rajchman 2010:14](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=14) > What is distinctive for postwar time-image cinema for Deleuze, in this regard, is a new political principle, seen in altered relations between filmmakers and their actors and publics.[Rajchman 2010:14](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=14) > However, in making such invention possible, dispositifs, like the cinematic, are distinguished as something more than “media,” or technical supports, or means of transmitting and receiving information; they are, rather, ways of disposing our senses in such a way as to enable thinking or to make ideas possible.[Rajchman 2010:19](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PPSJ6TXA?page=19) ### Related ```dataview LIST FROM [[@leighton_deleuzes_2008]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ```