Amen to that. On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 2:36 PM Chrissie Iles, Curatorial < chrissie_i...@whitney.org> wrote:
> Most importantly, what are we all doing to support Black filmmakers and > thinkers, and expand the discussion beyond the Eurocentric model to take on > the larger, more inclusive post colonial thinking that is now so urgent. > We’re in the middle of the biggest uprising in American history, and that > changes everything and honestly blows all this out of the water in terms of > what we need to be thinking about now. > Chrissie > > On Aug 25, 2020, at 1:48 PM, Michael Betancourt < > hinterland.mov...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Bernie, > > Thank you for reminding me why I don’t get involved in these discussions. > Not in decades ... but animation and avant-garde film is a topic that is of > personal interest. So, let me begin by saying that there is no emotion in > this response I’m writing. I'm not angry, upset or anything except > (perhaps) a bit disappointed. But I’d done with this discussion since I > recognize a pattern of "gas lighting." You can claim I'm being over > sensitive, that's fine. I'm not interested. This is not the start of a > flame or me walking away in a "huff" because you're "right" (I don't think > you are, and I'm not), but simply my giving up on the discussion entirely > as I have more important and useful *to me* ways to spend what time I > have; if this seems rude or confrontational, I'm sorry, but that is not the > intention here. This is me making a polite exit, one where I do not accept > the behavior I have observed directed at me. > > So my response is simply, “No. I’m done.” > > > > For readers who haven’t been following, or who don’t understand what I > mean, go through the other posts. "Gas lighting" someone in a discussion is > an attempt to make the person you’re “conversing” with feel like they don’t > know what they’re talking about, to make them doubt their expertise, > knowledge, ideas. It is an attempt to make the challenge posed by their > comments present go away. Recognizing it is simple. It works like this: > > First, claim to have been unclear and explain a point that was perfectly > obvious. This creates the sense that your comments have been misunderstood > and makes the person being gas lighted doubt their comprehension. > > Then, deny (some or all) of what the other person has been said, > dismissing it as irrelevant or incoherent. Ignore the rest. > > Next, drop in a few ad hominem asides during your comments that are > irrelevant, but put the other person in “their place.” (These can be used > to attach what you think are their credentials.) > > Finally, introduce a non sequitur argument phrasing it so it can be seen > as an attack. Whether it's coherent or relevant doesn't matter so long as > it becomes the focus of discussion. Feel free to contradict your earlier > comments since it doesn't matter what you're saying so long as the person > you're addressing feels they don't know what they're talking about and > defer to your "expertise." > > > > So as I said, I’m done with this discussion. Feel free to have the last > word. > > Michael Betancourt > Savannah, GA USA > > > michaelbetancourt.com | vimeo.com/cinegraphic > > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:47 AM Bernard Roddy <roddy...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Greetings, Michael. >> >> There was ambiguity in my sentence regarding Pip. When I wrote that I >> think "he" sees himself as doing philosophy, I am referring to Deleuze. >> >> There is way too much to try to address in your post. But whenever you >> introduce audiences, I think you are off track. Or, you are not talking >> about philosophical questions, whatever people teaching film studies might >> happen to say. >> >> There is a priority on narrative in Delueze. This I see as distracting >> given my priorities. And all these questions about language derive from >> literary cases of narrative. Remember Pasolini and the "cinema of poetry," >> which was supposed to conceive of cinema as unlike the written story? >> >> Of your quotations, the one from pp. 26 - 27 bears on narration. Deleuze >> seems to be asking what explains the appearance of narration when it >> appears. And he seems to be less inclined to adopt the terms from >> linguistics that were so common in discussion of cinema during the heyday >> of Barthes and semiotics. >> >> Only at the end do you take up what I find a manageable question, and the >> one at stake for me here. I wouldn't say the question concerns Deleuze >> exegesis. It was, rather, in what way are we going to think about >> animation? >> >> And yet, given the right focus, I would like to enjoy Deleuze's work. I >> just opened to p. 56, where he mentions Bergson and Husserl, and where this >> term "movement-image" seems to receive a definition. Think of movement as >> non-mental and image as mental. The long history of discussion around how >> the mind and body could interact comes back to the surface, but where >> "mind" is now "image" and the "external world" is represented by "movement." >> >> That's a history making its way into what we would probably appreciate >> more if it presupposed a little less. These are extremely attenuated >> summaries of chunks from modern philosophy. And with them Deleuze spins his >> own equally abbreviated thinking. >> >> For me, it was about the appearance of movement in cinema and how it is >> to be explained. But the cinema has offered a model for explaining the same >> appearance in everyday perception. So, what we have is a history of >> philosophy that has thought in terms like film strips offer (and long >> before cinema, as it happens). >> >> My reference to Husserl presents the alternative. You may want to think >> about differences between past and future frames, but you'll end up with >> nonexistent parts of something that is supposed to be presently observed >> (what is past is gone). So in Husserl we have an incredibly developed >> alternative nobody bothers with. (And who is really going to know what >> Derrida's thinking about Husserl involved? I mean, seriously.) >> >> Option 1: You understand time as if it is made up of moments that can be >> divided. The model is space. Option 2: You realize that you only perceive >> what is present. And you also realize that doing geometry isn't the same as >> drawing conclusions from your little sketches. In geometry, Husserl says, >> you work with essences. There is a point of contact with your sketch, but >> your basis for thinking is not empirical. >> >> And so we have Ariadne and the construction of space without temporal >> parts. We have geometry done on a grand scale. And we have an alternative >> for the person who shoots frame by frame her drawings of figures - or the >> navigation of her architectural designs. >> >> Bernie >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FrameWorks mailing list >> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com >> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >> > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > _______________________________________________ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > -- Ryder Thomas White (he/him) Asst. Propsmaster "The Good Doctor" Season 4 2400 Boundary Road Main Street West, 4th Floor Burnaby, BC V5M 3Z3 Canada Reception: 604.292.5150 Office: 604.292.5167
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
