think film

misliti film...think film

CINEMANIAC 2013

Publikacija je tiskana povodom izložbe Misliti film (21. srpanj - 6. kolovoz, 2013) MMC LUKA, Pula

uz 60. Festival igranog filma u PuliPublished on the occasion of the exhibition Think film

(July 21 - August 6, 2013) MMC LUKA, Pula, marking the 60th Pula Film Festival

misliti film...

CINEMANIAC Misliti film... research in progressBranka Benčić

Izložba CINEMANIAC predstavlja dugoročnu interdisciplinarnu istraživačku platformu koja propituje veze filma, pokretnih slika i suvremene umjetnosti, kao popratni program koji se od 2002.

godine realizira na Festivalu igranog filma u Puli. Predstavlja radove hrvatskih i internacionalnih umjetnika približavajući ih širokom

krugu publike.Cinemaniac kao kontinuiran višegodišnji istraživački i izložbeni

projekt nastaje iz želje za predstavljanjem radova iz svijeta umjetnosti i filma, koji nastaju na raskrižju tih umjetničkih

medija, kojem filmski festival omogućava kontekst i organizacijski okvir, a od svojih početaka predstavlja aktivni kontekst koji omogućava prezentiranje umjetničkih djela, mjesto susreta u

kojem se integriraju društveni, kulturni, tehnološki, medijski i estetski aspekti, sjecišta na kojima se susreću umjetnost, umjetnici, institucije i publika, stvaraju novi oblici suradnje, problematiziraju

odnosi filma i vizualnih umjetnosti. Ona je mjesto gdje se prezentira

2

think film

recentna hrvatska i međunarodna produkcija filmova umjetnika, umjetničkog videa, eksperimentalnoga i alternativnog filma te

multimedijalnih instalacija, otkriva i artikulira baština alternativnog filma i predstavljaju umjetnici i radovi antologijskog značaja.

Danas se afirmacija i reaktualizacija eksperimentalne, alternativne i amaterske kinematografije te suvremene audiovizualne produkcije “filmova umjetnika” podjednako odvija u prostorima galerija, muzeja kao i filmskih festivala. Riječ je o pokušaju otvaranja

novoga diskurzivnog prostora.Izložbe u okviru prošle, sadašnje i buduće programske platforme Misliti film, kao research in progress nastavljaju se na dosadašnja

iskustva rada sa pokretnim slikama, poput istraživanja i prezentacije kojima su u središnjem interesu bili arhitektura i film (2009), medijska instalacija kao interface (2006), zatim

pulski festival MAFAF i baština alternativnog, eksperimentalnog i amaterskog filma (2010), pogled unazad, podvlačenje crte,

retrospektivni CINEMANIAC X (2011), te film drugim sredstvima kroz Filmski letak Slobodana Šijana (2012). Projekt okuplja umjetnike koji u svom radu na različite načine formiraju

specifičan odnos prema ideji filma kao “prostora mišljenja”, filma “drugim sredstvima” i kritike filmskog aparata, mjesta u kojem se reflektiraju aspekti društva, ideologije, kulture, gdje film postaje

svojevrsna riznica ili cultural interface.Tematizirajući na razne načine koncept vizualnih medija i

pokretnih slika, izložba problematizira odnose prema filmu, prema pojedinim filmovima, situacijama, prema žanrovima,

filmskom mediju, filmskom jeziku i izražajnim sredstvima filma, tematizira prostorno-vremenske koncepte i odnose prema društvu

i popularnoj kulturi, načine gledanja i prezentacije. U tom smislu izložbe predstavljaju nov društveni prostor u kojem

se aktivno radi na značenjima, pričama, povijesti i funkcijama kulturnog materijala. Pridonose stvaranju kontekstualnog

pristupa koji se temelji na izložbi kao komunikacijskoj formi u koju se integriraju zajednički društveni, kulturni i estetski aspekti,

uvode u javne prostore teme, ideje, problemi, stvarajući aktivnu interakciju socijalnog i kulturnog polja, gdje se opisuju i publici predstavljaju društveni procesi i konteksti iz kojih proizlaze, te

nagovješta imaginacija i perspektive budućnosti.

3

misliti film...

CINEMANIAC Think film, research in progressBranka Benčić

The exhibition CINEMANIAC works as an ongoing research platform questioning the connection between film, moving images and

contemporary art. It is established in 2002. as support program at the Pula Film Festival. As an ongoing research and exhibition project,

Cinemaniac emerged from the desire to present works from the world of art and film at the crossroads of these media. From its beginning, it has been an active context enabling the presentation of works of art, as a meeting place where social, cultural, technological, media and aesthetic aspects integrate, an intersection where art, artists,

institutions and audiences meet, where new forms of collaboration are formed, and where relationships between film and visual arts

are discussed. It is a place where recent Croatian and international production of artists films, artistic videos, experimental and

alternative films and multimedia installations is presented, where alternative film heritage is revealed and articulated, and artists and

anthological works are presented.Today, the reaffirmation and reactualization of experimental,

4

think film

alternative and amateur cinematography and the contemporary audiovisual production of “artists’ films” is equally present in

galleries and museums, cinemas and film festivals through attempts of opening up new discursive spaces.

The exhibitions and projects within the past, current and future platform Think Film, as research in progress, are a continuation

of past experiences: architecture and film (2009), exhibition as interface (2006), historical heritage of alternative, amateur

and experimental film through the research and presentation of MAFAF Festival 1965 – 1991 (2010), a 2011 look backwards, the

retrospective CINEMANIAC X, and “cinema by other means” through the Film Leaflet by Slobodan Šijan (2012).

Cinemaniac gathers artists that form a specific relationship with the idea of film as a place that reflects social, ideological and

cultural aspects, where film becomes a kind of repository, a cultural interface. Questioning the concept of visual media or moving

images in different ways, the exhibition questions different attitudes to film, specific films, situations, genres, cinematic medium,

cinematic language and means of expression in film. Furthermore, it addresses the concepts of space and time and relations towards society

and popular culture, ways of interpretation and representation.In that sense, the exhibitions are producing a new social

environment for active work on meanings, stories, history and functions of cultural material. They contribute to the creation of a contextual approach based on the exhibition as a form of communication that integrates common social, cultural and

aesthetic aspects, introducing topics, ideas, issues in public spaces and creating an active interaction of social and cultural fields

where social processes and their contexts of origin are described and presented to the audience, and where imagination and perspectives

of the future are foreshadowed. Exhibition THINK FILM is marking 60th anniversary of the Pula

Film Festival with an exhibition that builds up on the idea of film/cinema as a complex and developed system of representation, re-

working it’s codes and conventions, formative structures, historical narratives, tensions of time and space, rethinking film/cinema as

complex cultural forms, critical methodology and social, ideological and technological apparatus.

5

misliti film...

DA

VID

MA

LJK

OV

IĆ: R

EC

ALL

ING

FR

AM

ES

C/B

FO

TOG

RA

FIJ

A IZ

KO

LAŽ

A

NE

GA

TIV

A, B

/W P

RIN

T F

RO

M C

OLL

AG

E O

N N

EG

ATI

VE

6

think film

misliti film...

misliti film. misliti kino. misliti kinematografiju. misliti izložbu. misliti festival. (ne nužno tim redoslijedom)

Branka Benčić

“…(there are) two possibilities for the elaboration of film as medium. The first would understand film as film: as a material whose structural

logic and essential characteristics can be articulated through decomposition and delineation. The second would consider film as cinema: as a historically embedded social technology whose

institutions had initiated the widespread transformation of both our perceptual sensorium and our affective allegiances.”1

ANDREW V. UROSKIE: FILM AS FILM AND CINEMA

7

misliti film...

Film je istina, priča je laž - tvrdio je 1921. godine u Bonjour Cinema dvadesetčetverogodišnji Jean Epstain, pozdravljajući

revoluciju u umjetnosti kakvu može omogućiti film, a stvarnost te ‘nekonzistentne utopije’ podrazumijevala je estetski,

istraživački, tehnički i politički san.2 Mišljenje filma je putovanje između krajnje udaljenih točaka, nastavlja Jacques Ranciere, s jedne strane postoji ono što se

događa u stvarnosti projekcije, a s druge ono što čini film kao diskurzivni, povijesni, društveni ili filozofijski fenomen.3

misliti film...

Kao kompleksan i razvijen sustav reprezentacije film postavlja pitanja o načinima na koje se oblikovano dominantnim

poretkom strukturira viđenje i pogled na svijet, a povijesnim je tijekom razvio posebne oblike odnosa prema stvarnosti. Poigravajući se napetostima između dimenzija vremena i

prostora, estetike i ideologije, društva i medija, filmski kodovi i konvencije oblikuju dominantan poredak, dok različiti

oblici alternativnog filma dekonstruiraju njegove kanone i odnose prema formativnim strukturama.4 Dio teorije filma pod utjecajem Althussera shvaćao je film kao “tehnologiju

društva”. Jean Louis Baudry u isto je vrijeme ponudio koncepciju “kinematičkog aparata” (cinematic apparatus)5 kao spoja

hardwera i softwarea, materijalnog i konceptualnog “sklopa” tehnologije društva, budući da je reprezentacija društva i ideologije konstruirana datom tehnologijom, njezinim

materijalnim i ideološkim sklopom, u okvirima proučavanja filma u susretu ideologije i tehnologije filma kao društvene institucije. U tom smislu Baudry razlikuje dva termina basic apparatus i dispositif. Prvi se referira na kompleksan sistem

produkcije i reprodukcije pokretnih slika, dok drugi naznačuje nematerijalni, konceptualan ustroj usmjeren na subjekt,

kategoriju koja konstituira ideologiju reprezentacije.6

Zadane pretpostavke kinematičkog aparata shvaćene kao institucionalna i ideološka infrastruktura, kritički su prostori

preispitivanja konceptualnih i kontekstualnih odrednica, nudeći alate njihove dekonstrukcije. Mjesta su susreta usmjerena

8

think film

na “čitanje” društvenog, kulturnog, medijskog i tehnološkog aspekta, prostor za istraživanje medija, subjektiviteta, otpora,

tehničke reprodukcije, komunikacije, ideologije i estetike, ispitujući odnose kulturne produkcije, institucija i publike.

Izložba MISLITI FILM kojom CINEMANIAC obilježava 60-u obljetnicu Festivala igranog filma u Puli okuplja sedam

inozemnih i hrvatskih umjetnika i umjetnica koji u svom radu na različite načine propituju film kao sustav reprezentacije,

“tehnologiju društva”, kompleksan sistem produkcije i reprodukcije pokretnih slika. Njihovi radovi predstavljaju

prostore konstrukcije i istraživanja poetike i estetike filma, kina, kinematografije ili filmske slike, a konceptualne odrednice koje

slijede predstavljaju okvir za radove koji formiraju specifičan odnos prema ideji filma kao mjesta u kojem se reflektiraju

aspekti društva, ideologije, kulture, gdje film postaje resurs, riznica, repozitorij. Bez obzira na oblik u kojem se realiziraju:

film, video ili fotografija, ovi radovi predstavljaju različite kinematičke eksperimente kojima su umjetnici izgradili

specifičan senzibilitet kroz koji progovaraju kritička refleksija ili uznemirenost, te analiziranje konteksta referentnog/korištenog

medija. Radovi na izložbi ukazuju kako su filmski način mišljenja, iskustvo gledanja filmova, filmski jezik, povijest,

teorija i estetika filma oblikovali umjetničke prakse i naš svakodnevni pogled na svijet.

Angažirajući prakse aproprijacije, rekontekstualizacije, rekonstrukcije, demontaže, radovima koji polaze od pred-teksta koji se iznova čita, umjetnici se bave pojmovima transpozicije i

prevođenja, ponovnog čitanja, sastavljanja i procesa proizvodnje značenja, kojima ukazuju kako se značenje premješta a okolnosti

diskursa rekontekstualiziraju kroz sjećanje, ponavljanje, prepoznavanje. Pažnja recipijenta podjednako se usmjerava na smisao djela koji se shvaća čitanjem njegovih dijelova, kao i na

načelo njegove konstrukcije, a lomovi i imaginacija u umjetničkim postupcima dovode se u vezu s prevođenjem ili metodama reprodukcije. Provocira se lom u recepciji koji je analogan

fragmentarnosti umjetničke tvorevine.7 Filmove umjetnika, eksperimentalne filmove, galerijske filmske

9

misliti film...

instalacije, fotomontaže dovodimo u vezu s praksama proširenog filma s željom da podsjete na kontinuitet, a vidljivom stvaraju

artikulaciju pitanja filma kroz odnos prema iskazivanju materijalnosti kinematografskog aparata koji postupcima ogoljavanja naglašava

elemente, faze, sredstva i proces nastanka djela.

Riječima jednog od protagonista filma Yet Untitled [“Pieces of nature“] Maria Pfeifera – riječ je o afinitetu za backstage esthetic,

exposed construction, suspension of disbelief, a better articulation of something real...8

Radovi na izložbi vidljivim čine ono nevidljivo, skriveno, ukazuju na “konstrukciju”, demontažu, teatralizaciju, podsjećaju

nas upravo na artificijelan, konstruirani karakter medija kao sredstva transformacije diskurzivne prakse. To su radovi koji vrlo

često na različite načine pretvaraju jezik, umjetnička sredstva, postupke, te filmski arhiv u svoj središnji sadržaj.

Peter Wollen negdje u knjizi Architecture and cinema: Places and Non Places ističe kako kadriranje i uokviravanje prizora,

definiranje proporcija, elemenata rasvjete implicira konstrukciju prizora i određeno prostorno strukturiranje, čime doprinosi organizaciji (filmskog) prostora i njegovom strukturiranju.

Film Maria Pfeifera Yet Untitled [“Pieces of nature“] i video Shine Ellie Krakow formiraju se kao metanarativne naracije o produkciji pokretnih slika, razvijaju se oko načina filmskog

MA

RIO

PFE

IFE

R: Y

ET

UN

TIT

LED

(PIE

CE

S O

F N

AT

UR

E) (

STI

LL F

RA

ME

)

10

think film

mišljenja i postupaka rada na filmu, produkcije pokretnih slika, sastavljaju se oko elemenata kamere, prostora, rekvizita, kadriranog prizora, formalno jasnih konstitutivnih elemenata, kvadrata prostora, geometrijskog okvira i kadriranoga prizora s jedne strane, te specifično strukturiranog narativa s druge.

Istražuju kodove kinematografije kao alate i sadržaje, artikulirajući refleksivne i tehničke procese koji ukazuju na iluzornost filmskog

medija, a istovremeno naglašavajući fascinaciju njime.Yet Untitled [“Pieces of nature“] Maria Pfeifera predstavlja strukturalnu naraciju o procesu produkcije pokretnih slika.

Predstavljajući ogoljen prazan prostor filmskog studija Mario Pfeifer upušta se u metareferencijalna istraživanja prostornih i

estetskih uvjeta filma kao medija i institucije. Fragmentarna naracija razvija se u specifičnoj interakciji glumaca,

prostora, kamere, jezika filmskih izražajnih sredstava, naglašavajući uloge koje zastupaju i u izravnoj je relaciji s konkretnim materijalnim

prostornim uvjetima filmskog studija, naglašavajući glumačku samosvijest kao konstitutivni elemenata samoga rada. Osim toga, na razini pred-teksta, film Yet Untitled [“Pieces of nature“] pronalazi

svoja referencijalna uporišta u dva umjetnička rada iz različitih razdoblja, fotografiji Jeffa Walla Picture for Women (1979.) koja je pak potaknuta poznatim platnom Edouarda Maneta Bar Folie Bergere (1882.), transpozicijom vizualnog jezika i kompleksnih

MA

RIO

PFE

IFE

R: Y

ET

UN

TIT

LED

(PIE

CE

S O

F N

AT

UR

E) (

STI

LL F

RA

ME

)

11

misliti film...

odnosa između statičnih i pokretnih slika, kinematičkog iskustva, medija slikarstva, fotografije i filma. Ogledalo koje se pojavljuje u sva tri djela sredstvo je koje ne samo što reflektira prizor, već služi kao svjedok koji dodatno intrigira i komplicira prostorne odnose,

narativ i dinamike koje iz njih proizlaze.

Naracija koja predstavlja okosnicu videa Shine Ellie Krakow performativ je koji pripovijeda gotovo u didaskalijama. Pratimo

glas u off-u, kao premreženu dvostruku metanaraciju strukturiranu konvencijama filmskog scenarija – upute za konstrukciju scene

snimanja prizora, i rečenice koje se odnose na pozadinsku “radnju” kao elementa iz svijeta fikcije, dok ono što se odvija na ekranu

predstavlja performans dvoje scenskih radnika i pripadajućih rekvizita (rasvjete, reflektora). Međutim, glavni protagonisti ovdje nisu scenski

radnici. Umjesto ljudskih figura tu su dva rasvjetna tijela, koja kao da preuzimaju ulogu fikcionalnih likova o kojima pripovijeda narativ

ljubavne priče, koju međutim, suprotno običajima konvencionalne kinematografije – nismo u mogućnosti vidjeti. Priča je skrivena, kako bi ukazala na nešto drugo, postupak rada na filmu. Prizor predstavlja

jednostavan, ogoljen, crn filmski set, bez suvišnog dekora i bez prostornog iluzioniranja, sveden na osnovne funkcionalne elemente. Neprestano vraćanje scenskih radnika kako bi konstruirali rasvjetu

za svaki nov prizor, nedostatak vizualne reprezentacije pripovijedane fikcije, filmske radnje i vidljive reprezentacije ljubavnih prizora na

ELL

IE K

RA

KO

W:

SH

INE

(STI

LL F

RA

ME

)

12

think film

kakve smo navikli u narativnom filmu, pomalo daje dojam uzaludnosti njihovim aktivnostima, ali i dozu ironije i humora. Dok oni izvršavaju

upute naratora, umjetnica računa na imaginaciju promatrača. The Shoot umjetnika Camerona Gainera koncipiran je kao video-esej iz teorije filma i gotovo je didaktičkog karaktera.

Kratke forme i jednostavne strukture, snimljen u jednom kadru statičnom kamerom iz fiksne pozicije gotovo dokumentira performans protagonista koji na školskoj ploči kredom zapisuje temeljne pojmove

teorije filma, a tekstualni elementi, zapisane riječi čine središte oko kojeg se formira ključni dio djela. Reprezentacija je teorijskog aparata koji uključuje terminologiju, dijagrame, odnose, kreće se od Lacana ili Deleuzea te bavi odnosima filma i fotografije, pokretne i statične slike.

misliti kino...

Please turn out the lights… we have all been here before, no, not in this very room, but in this generic darkness...9

Navedenim riječima Hollis Frampton započinje performativno Predavanje (A Lecture), monolog o “performansu projekcije” kao “filmu bez filma”. (Tekst čita snimljeni glas Michaela Snowa, dok Frampton “upravlja” projektorom.) Ta zamišljena komunikacija projekcije-projektora-projekcionista kojoj u mraku kinodvorane

CA

ME

RO

N G

AIN

ER

: TH

E S

HO

OT

(S

TILL

FR

AM

E)

13

misliti film...

svjedoči publika izvedena je na Hunter College (New York) 30. listopada 1968. U Predavanju Hollis Frampton uvodi nas u

prostor kina, institucionalni kodirani prostor u kojem se izvodi projekcija, a nastavlja razmišljanjima o poetici, estetici,

ontologiji i praksi filma.10

Arhitektura kinodvorane kao konceptualno, ideološko i institucionalno okruženje u kojem se izvodi projekcija, od umjetničkih praksi proširenog filma s kraja 1960-ih godina postaje dio kritičkog diskursa koji se odnosi na institucije

kina, arhiva, muzeja, te sudjeluje u artikulaciji ontološkog i kulturološkog statusa umjetničke produkcije. Strategijama

ogoljavanja i dekonstrukcije prostora i elementi arhitekture i njihova reprezentacija postaju simbolički i kritički interface, a označavaju polupropusnu membranu kao prostor interakcije

između tehnološkog aparata (projekcije) i percepcije, koji konstituiraju procese medijacije između arhitekture (muzeja,

galerije, kino dvorane) i publike.11 Arhitektura je ideološki shvaćena na nekoliko razina: kao institucionalno okruženje, kao fizički prostor (neutralan ili ne) i kao reprezentacija; mjesto je tvorbe značenja, dok jezik filma svojim izražajnim sredstvima

i sintaktičkim načelima omogućava posebno sagledavanje i prostora i stvarnosti, kao i odnosa spram percepcije prostora i

VLA

DIS

LAV

KN

EZ

EV

IĆ: B

INA

RY

PIT

CH

(STI

LL F

RA

ME

)

14

think film

vremena, arhitekture i filma (kinematografske reprezentacije). Formu gledališta pronalazimo u središtu rada Vladislava Kneževića

Binary Pitch. Unutar jednostavne geometrije statičnoga kadra, elementi arhitekture i prostora postaju predmetom vizualnoga eksperimenta.

Video je strukturiran u tri dijela, a osnovu prizora čini nepomični kadar

gledališta. Kamera je statična, fiksirana u jednoj točki. Gledalište je pokretno i pokrenuto, sjedala se automatski izvlače naprijed i uvlače

natrag na početnu poziciju. Pokreti gledališta jedini su pokret u filmu. Predstavljene “tribine” za publiku mogu pripadati bilo kojoj

multifunkcionalnoj dvorani različite namjene, međutim najviše nas podsjećaju na kinodvoranu ili teatar.

Osnovni “događaj” predstavljaju tri različita načina na koje se manifestira pokret u videu. S jedne strane je to automatsko izvlačenje

(prvi dio) i uvlačenje sjedala gledališta (treći dio), i kodirana poruka koju u središnjem, drugom dijelu izvode pokreti podizanja i

spuštanja sjedala. U iluzioniranom prostoru binarnim kodom strojne estetike progovara se o komunikaciji, estetici i programiranju prema

tekstualnom predlošku Maxa Bensea. Prizor gledališta u pokretu prati zvuk mehanizma njegovog otvaranja i zatvaranja. Mogućnosti digitalne tehnologije i postprodukcije slike jednostavnu radnju čine

mehaničkom i artificijelnom, a manipulacija figurativnim realizmom (fotografske, filmske) slike u postizanju elemenata neobičnog

omogućava izvođenje neočekivanih pokreta.

VLA

DIS

LAV

KN

EZ

EV

IĆ: B

INA

RY

PIT

CH

(STI

LL F

RA

ME

)

15

misliti film...

misliti kinematografiju...

Arhiv fotografskih i filmskih slika 20. stoljeća kao dio kolektivne memorije čuva se u brojnim radovima umjetnika, ukazujući na ulogu suvremene umjetnosti u uspostavljanju veze s prošlošću.

Umjetnici su razvili različite prakse dekonstrukcije i prerade arhiva, ističući važnost ponovnog čitanja i odnosa s prošlošću. Različiti oblici prisvajanja medijskog sadržaja, poput fotografija i filma,

kroz found footage postaju resurs koji konstituira novi umjetnički prostor “podrazumjevajući neku vrstu epistemologije zaborava,

rekonstrukciju horizonta”. Rad s arhivskim materijalom u umjetnosti možemo shvatiti kao kritičku metodologiju kojom se konstituiraju i premještaju značenja. Umjetnička istraživanja arhiva preispituju

načine konstrukcije prošlosti, služeći se najčešće fotografskim i filmskim zapisima kako bi preispitali povijesne pozicije, pitanja istine,

dokumenta, identiteta, memorije, traume, gubitka, označavajući gotovo instinktivnu potrebu da se stvarnost koja je promaknula

pokuša rekonstruirati. Tehnikama preobrazbe, prožimaju se umjetničke vrste i mediji, (re)konstruiraju se priče, povijest i kultura.

For Cultural Purposes Only Sarah Wood kao animirano-eksperimentalni esej razmatra kulturalnu važnost filmskog arhiva i društveni značaj kinematografije u konstituiranju

SA

RA

H W

OO

D: F

OR

CU

LTU

RA

L P

UR

PO

SE

S O

NLY

(STI

LL F

RA

ME

)

16

think film

identiteta. Izloženi fragmenti iz povijesti palestinskog filma, arhiva uništenog 1982. godine sjećanja su na nepostojeću

kinematografiju. U Arhivskoj groznici Derrida tvrdi kako nema političke moći bez kontrole arhiva, koja označava kontrolu

memorije, i ističe kako se društva razlikuju upravo u otvorenosti

i pristupu arhivima, njegovim konstituiranjem i načinima na koje se materijal interpretira. Različitim vizualnim elementima, razinama naracije, elementima slike i teksta, pokretne i statične

slike, animacije, crteža, found footagea kao pronađenog arhivskog materijala, isprepliće se priča o izgubljenom arhivu palestinskog

filma – izgubljenoj kinematografiji. Animirani segmenti prate naraciju sugovornika, tumače sjećanja, crteži nastoje rekonstruirati materijal ondje gdje se filmski zapis izgubio, a found footage zapis na mjestima je gdje donosi informaciju o nekom filmskom djelu,

dok index kartice forenzički ukazuju na sustav katalogizacije i postojanje nekad organiziranog filmskog materijala.

Na tragu ideje “data recovery” kao dijela kompleksnog ciklusa koji okuplja radove koji se temelje na ponovnom čitanju i vraćanju kao procesu povrata podataka koji pokušava povezati i vratiti

fragmente prošlih događaja, aktivnosti ili situacija koje su nestale u zaboravu Dalibor Martinis vraća se nekim svojim ranijim

radovima i intervenira u smislu rekonstrukcije, dok u Egipatskim

SA

RA

H W

OO

D: F

OR

CU

LTU

RA

L P

UR

PO

SE

S O

NLY

(STI

LL F

RA

ME

)

17

misliti film...

stubama Odesse ne intervenira u raniji rad, već nekoliko medijskih sustava, onaj kinematografije, i onaj informacijski kojeg čine radio, televizija ili internet, kako bi stvorio novo

djelo. Video Dalibora Martinisa prisvaja poznatu scenu stubišta u Odessi iz filma Krstarica Potempkin Sergeja Ejzenštajna,

kao paradigmatično mjesto u konceptualizaciji kinematografije i ideologije, jedno od ključnih čvorišta značenja odnosa

kinematografije i politike, montaže i revolucije. U Egipatskim stubama Odesse Dalibor Martinis preuzima vizualne elemente iz Ejzenštajnovog filma kao found footage, filmski ready made i filmski citat i spaja ih sa zvukovima prosvjednika, sudionika

egipatskog proljeća na Trgu Tahrir u Kairu 2011. godine. Trenutna (recentna) događanja u Egiptu kojima svakodnevno svjedočimo putem vijesti dodatno aktualiziraju ovaj rad, u kojemu spoj dva medija, crno-bijelog filma iz razdoblja avangarde i zvuka i slika

preuzetih s interneta premošćuje 20. i 21. stoljeće.

Realizirani kao fotomontaže, eksperimenti sa fotografijom višestrukih ekspozicija i multipliciranih vizura i pogleda –

specifični kolaži negativa Davida Maljkovića podsjećaju nas kako (na formalnoj i semantičkoj razini) film i kolaž omogućavaju

kinematografsku dekompoziciju, gdje se percepcija u obliku loma uspostavlja kao formalno načelo.12 Upravo je slika nostalgije,

DA

LIB

OR

MA

RT

INIS

: EG

YP

TIA

N O

DE

SS

A S

TAIR

S (S

TILL

FR

AM

E)

18

think film

tvrdi Svetlana Boym, slika dvostruke ekspozicije – kolizija slike kao istovremenog prizora prošlosti i sadašnjosti.13

Recalling Frames Davida Maljkovića donosi nam prizore u kojima istovremeno postoje fragmenti slika koje pripadaju

različitom vremenu kao i različitim sustavima reprezentacije.

U njima Maljković preuzima odabrane kadrove iz filma Proces (The Trial, 1962.) Orsona Wellesa, s Anthonijem Perkinskom u glavnoj

ulozi, koji je sniman na lokacijama u Zagrebu i u studiju Jadran filma, tada značajnoga filmskog studija i produkcijske kuće, i spaja

ih s fotografijama koje prikazuju trenutno stanje na istim lokacijama u Zagrebu, dok manipuliranjem i multipliciranjem očišta ukazuje

na reorganizaciju osjećaja vremena i prostora. U kompleksnom narativu ovog rada osim specifičnog interesa za film Proces Orsona

Wellesa, sudbinu Jadran filma kao podsjetnika na prosperitet kinematografske produkcije iz prošlih vremena, autor ukazuje i na

procese transformacije urbanog tkiva grada Zagreba od 1960-ih godina. Istraživanje povijesnoga, kulturnoga i teorijskog naslijeđa

socijalističkog modernističkog projekta kontinuirana je preokupacija Davida Maljkovića koju sustavno razlaže u svojim radovima.

U Recalling Frames David Maljković putem filma kao fikcije i ideologije, fotografija kao dokumenta i umjetničke imaginacije

re-konstruira prostor, ukazuje kako se modeli reprezentacije nekog mjesta stvaraju na temelju različitih fragmenata – slojeva iz

DA

VID

MA

LJK

OV

IĆ: R

EC

ALL

ING

FR

AM

ES

C/B

FO

TOG

RA

FIJ

A IZ

KO

LAŽ

A

NE

GA

TIV

A, B

/W P

RIN

T F

RO

M C

OLL

AG

E O

N N

EG

ATI

VE

19

misliti film...

neposredne okoline, priča, dijelova povijesti i kulture koji grade i oblikuju procese mišljenja i percepcije, u kojima i kinematografija

ima formativnu ulogu, korespondirajući s društveno-političkim kontekstom prostora u kojima su realizirani.

1 Andrew V. Uroskie: Film as Film and Cinema; The Arts in Question, UC Berkley 2003.2 Jacques Ranciere: Filmska fabula, Clio, Beograd 2010.3 “La pensée sur le cinéma est un parcours entre des points extrêmement distants: il y a d’un côté ce qui se passe dans la réalité d’une projection, et de l’autre ce qui constitue le cinéma comme un phénomène historique, social – ou philosophique.” Jacques Rancière: L’affect indécis, interview, Cinephilosophie, Critique 692-693, 2005.4 Laura Mulvey: Vizualni užitak i narativni film, u: Feministička likovna kritika i teorija likovnih umjetnosti, Centar za ženske studije, Zagreb 1999, str. 66.5 Jean Louis Baudry: Ideological effects of the basic cinemato-graphic apparatus, u: Film The-ory Reader, Columbia University

Press, NY 1985, str. 295-296.6 Teresa De Lauretis: Technologies of Gender: Essays on theory film and Fiction, IUP, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1987. J. L. Baudry je 1975. upotrijebio pojam dispositif da bi istodobno označio: 1. Raspored tehničkih uređaja za distribuciju određenih medijskih ostvaraja, 2. Medijske ostvaraje prilagođene tom rasporedu, i 3. Mentalni ustroj publike što ga proizvode ti ostvaraji. Više u: Vladimir Biti: Pojmovnik suvremene književne teorije, Matica hrvatska, Zagreb 1997.7 Peter Burger: Teorija avagarde, Antibarbarus, Zagreb 2007., str. 109.8 transkript iz filma, izvorno na engleskom jeziku.9 Hollis Frampton: A lecture, u: On Camera Arts. The Writings of Hollis Frampton, MIT Press, 2009., str. 125.

10 Isto.11 Thomas Zummer: Projection and Dis/embodiment: Genealogies of the virtual; u: Chrissie Iles: Into the light – Projected image in american art 1964-1977 (katalog izložbe), Whitney Museum of american Art, 2002. 12 James Donald: Grad i kino, u: Vizualna kultura, Jesenski i Turk, Zagreb 2002.13 Svetlana Boym: The Future of Nostalgia, Basic Books, 2001.

DA

VID

MA

LJK

OV

IĆ: R

EC

ALL

ING

FR

AM

ES

C/B

FO

TOG

RA

FIJ

A IZ

KO

LAŽ

A

NE

GA

TIV

A, B

/W P

RIN

T F

RO

M C

OLL

AG

E O

N N

EG

ATI

VE

20

think film

think film...

Think film. Think cinema. Think cinematography. Think exhibition. Think film festival. (not necessarily in that order)

Branka Benčić

…(there are) two possibilities for the elaboration of film as medium. The first would understand film as film: as a material whose structural logic and essential characteristics can be articulated through decomposition

and delineation. The second would consider film as cinema: as a historically embedded social technology whose institutions had initiated

the widespread transformation of both our perceptual sensorium and our affective allegiances.1

ANDREW V. UROSKIE: FILM AS FILM AND CINEMA

21

misliti film...

„Cinema is true. A story is a lie“, said the twenty-four-year-old Jean Epstein in Bonjour Cinema in 1921, greeting the revolution in art enabled by film, while the reality of that “inconsistent utopia“ presupposed an esthetic, technical and political dream.2 Thinking

cinema is a journey between extremely distant points, says Jacques Ranciere, on one end there are the events in the reality of the

projection, on the other is that which makes cinema a historical, social or philosophical phenomenon.3

think film...

As a complex and developed system of representation, the film poses questions about the ways of structuring the view and the world

(by the dominant system). Playing with the tensions between time and space, esthetics and ideology, society and the media, film codes

and conventions create the dominant order, while various forms of alternative film deconstruct its canons and relations towards its formative structures.4 Part of film theory influenced by Althusser understood film as the “technology of society”. At the same time, Jean Louis Baudry offered the concept of “cinematic apparatus”5

as a combination of hardware and software, the material and the conceptual configuration of the technology of society, since the representation of society and ideology is constructed by a given technology and its material and ideological configuration. In

that sense Baudry differentiates two terms – basic apparatus and dispositif. The first refers to the complex system of production

and reproduction of moving images, while the other denotes the intangible, conceptual structure directed to the subject as a

category that constitutes the ideology of representation.6

The given assumptions of the cinematic apparatus are taken as the institutional and ideological infrastructure, critical spaces in

which to contemplate on conceptual and contextual determinants, offering tools for their deconstruction. They are meeting points

directed to the “reading” of the social, cultural, media and technological aspect, the space for the exploration of the medium, subjectivity, resistance, technical reproduction, communication, ideology and aesthetics, questioning the relationships between

cultural production, the institutions and the public.

22

think film

The exhibition THINK FILM marks the 60th anniversary of the Pula Film Festival, presenting seven international and Croatian

artists whose works use different ways to question film as a system of representation, the “technology of society”, a complex system of production and reproduction of moving images. Their works

represent the spaces of construction and exploration of the poetics and aesthetics of film, cinematography, cinema or film image, while

the conceptual determinants that follow represent a framework for the works forming a peculiar attitude to the idea of film as a

place reflecting the aspects of society, ideology and culture, where film becomes a resource, a treasury, a repository. Regardless of the

format of their realization, whether it is film, video or photography, these works represent various cinematic experiments that the artists

use to construct a specific sensibility engaging critical reflection or uneasiness, and the analysis of the context of the referential/utilized medium. The exhibited works show that the cinematic

way of thinking, the experience of watching films, film language, history, theory and aesthetics have shaped artistic practices and our

everyday view of the world.

Using practices of appropriation, recontextualization, reconstruction, demontage to produce works made of a pre-text, the artists deal with the terms of transposition and translation, rereading, assembling and the process of creation of meaning to point to the fact that meaning is shifted and the circumstances of discourse are recontextualized through memory, repetition,

recognition. The attention is directed to the principle of construction, while the fissures and the imagination in artistic procedures are brought into connection with translation and

methods of reproduction. This causes a break in reception analogous to the fragmentary character of the work of art.7

Artist films, experimental films, gallery film installations, photomontages are brought into connection with the practices of

expanded film with the desire to remind of continuity, making visible the articulation of the issue of film through the relationship with the expression of the material quality of the cinematic apparatus

which stresses the elements, the phases, the means and the process of production of the work with dismanteling procedures.

23

misliti film...

In the words of one of the protagonists of the film Yet Untitled [“Pieces of nature“] by Mario Pfeifer – it is about an affinity for

backstage esthetic, exposed construction, suspension of disbelief, a better articulation of something real...8

The exhibited works make visible what is usually invisible, hidden, showing that it is a “construction”, dismanteling, theatralization,

reminding us of an artificial, constructed character of the medium as a means of transformation of the discursive practice. These are works

that very often and in various ways transform language, artistic means, processes and film archives in their central content.

In his book Architecture and cinema: Places and Non Places, Peter Wollen points out that the framing of scenes, the definition of proportions and lighting elements, implies the construction of scenes and a certain spatial structuring, thus contributing to the

organization of (film) space and its structuring.Mario Pfeifer’s film Yet Untitled [“Pieces of Nature“] and the video Shine by Ellie Krakow formed as metanarrative about the production of moving images, developing around ways of thinking film and procedures when working on film and the production of moving images. They connect around elements of camera, space, props, framed scene, formally clear elements, on one hand and a

specifically constructed narrative on the other. They explore the codes

MA

RIO

PFE

IFE

R: Y

ET

UN

TIT

LED

(PIE

CE

S O

F N

AT

UR

E) (

STI

LL F

RA

ME

)

24

think film

of cinema as tools and contents, articulating reflexive and technical processes pointing to the illusory character of the film medium while

at the same time stressing their fascination with it.Yet Untitled [“Pieces of Nature“] by Mario Pfeifer represents a

structural narration on the process of production of moving images.

By representing a stripped empty space of the film studio, Mario Pfeifer engages in meta-referential explorations of spatial and

esthetic conditions of film as medium and system of representation. The fragmentary narration develops in a specific interaction of actors, space, camera, language of filmic means of expression,

stressing the roles they represent and is in direct relation with the concrete material and spatial conditions of the film studio, stressing

the actors’ self-consciousness as one of the constitutive elements of the work itself. On the level of pre-text, the film Yet Untitled

[“Pieces of Nature“] finds its points of reference in two works of art from different periods, the photograph Picture for Women (1979)

by Jeff Wall, inspired by the famous painting Bar Folie Bergere (1882) by Edouard Manet, through the transposition of visual

language and the complex relationships between still and moving images, cinematic experience, the media of painting, photography and film. The mirror appearing in all three works is a device not

only reflecting the scene but serving as witness complicating spatial relationships, the narrative and the dynamics they produce.

MA

RIO

PFE

IFE

R: Y

ET

UN

TIT

LED

(PIE

CE

S O

F N

AT

UR

E) (

STI

LL F

RA

ME

)

25

misliti film...

The narration shaping Ellie Krakow’s video Shine is a performative narrative in stage directions. We follow a narrated voice over as an intersected double metanarrative structured by the conventions of film script – directions for the construction of the scene for the shooting process and the phrases relating to the

background “action” as an element from the world of fiction, while the action taking place on screen represents a performance of two

film set workers and the pertaining props (lighting, spotlights). However, the main protagonists are not the film set workers.

Along with human figures we have two lighting lamps seemingly taking over the role of fictional characters narrated in the love

story that, contrary to the conventional cinematography, we are not able to see. The story is hidden in order to point to something

else, the process of work on film. The scene represents a simple, stripped bare, black film set, without unnecessary decorum and

without spatial illusion, reduced to its basic functional elements. The continuous returns of the set workers in order to set the

lighting for each new scene, the lack of visual representation of the narrated fiction, film plot and visible representation of love scenes we are used to in narrative feature films, underscores a

sense of pointlessness of their actions as well as a dose of irony and humour. While they are following the directions of the narrator,

the artist counts on the imagination of the viewer.

ELL

IE K

RA

KO

W:

SH

INE

(STI

LL F

RA

ME

)

26

think film

The Shoot, by the artist Cameron Gainer, is conceived as a video-essay on film theory and is almost of a didactical character. Shaped

in short and simple structure, shot in what it seems as one take from a fixed position and a static camera, it almost documents the

performance of the protagonist putting down the basic terms of film

theory with a chalk on a blackboard, while textual elements, the written words, make a core around which the key parts of the work

are formed. It represents the theoretical apparatus that includes terminology, diagrams, relationships, dealing with Lacan or Deleuze, relationships between film and photography, moving and still images.

think cinema...

Please turn out the lights… we have all been here before, no, not in this very room, but in this generic darkness...9

Words by Hollis Frampton are opening his performance based A Lecture, discussing the “performance of projection” as “film without

film”. (The text is read by the recorded voice of Michael Snow, while Frampton “opeates” the projector.) This imaginary communication between the projection – projector – projectionist witnessed by the audience in the darkness of the cinema was performed at Hunter College (New York) on October 30, 1968. In his A Lecture, Frampton introduces us to the space

CA

ME

RO

N G

AIN

ER

: TH

E S

HO

OT

(S

TILL

FR

AM

E)

27

misliti film...

of the cinema, an institutional coded space of projection and subsequent contemplation on poetics, aesthetics, ontology and practice of film.10

Since the artistic practices of expanded film in the late 1960s, the architecture of the cinema space as a conceptual, ideological and

institutional environment in which films are screened becomes part of the critical discourse that relates to the institutions of cinema, archives and museums, and participates in the articulation of the

ontological and cultural status of artistic production. Through strategies of dismanteling and deconstruction, the spaces and

elements of architecture and their representation become a symbolic and critical interface denoting a semipermeable membrane as a

space of interaction between the technological device (projection) and perception, constituting processes of mediation between

architecture (museum, gallery, cinema) and the audience.11 The architecture is ideologically understood on several levels: as an

institutional environment, as a physical space (neutral or not) and as representation. It is a place where meaning is created, while the film language with its means of expression and syntactic principles

renders the possibility to perceive the space and reality as well as the relationship towards the perception of space and time, architecture

and film (cinematographic representation).

VLA

DIS

LAV

KN

EZ

EV

IĆ: B

INA

RY

PIT

CH

(STI

LL F

RA

ME

)

28

think film

Binary Pitch by Vladislav Knežević concentrates around the space of an auditorium. Elements of architecture and the space become the

object of a visual experiment within the simple geometry of a still shot. The video is structured in 3 parts and the core of the scene is the still shot of the auditorium. The camera is static, fixed in one point.

The auditorium is on the move, in the sense that the reclining seats are automatically slowly pulled down and back up to the starting position,

and these movements represent the only movement in the film. The presented “stands” for the public may belong to any multifunctional

hall of various purposes, however, they most resemble those of a cinema or theatre. The basic “event” are the three different ways in which movement is manifested in this video. On one hand, it is the automatic pulling up (first part) and down (third part) of the seats

and the coded message brought forth in the central, second part, by the movements of the seats being reclined up and down. In the illusionary space a binary code of machine aesthetics speaks of communication, aesthetics and programming according to the textual model by Max Bense. The scene of the moving auditorium is accompanied by the sound of the mechanism opening and closing. The possibilities of

digital technology and image postproduction make this simple action mechanical and artificial, while the manipulation of figurative realism of the (photographic, film) image in achieving elements of the unusual

enables the performance of unusual movements.

VLA

DIS

LAV

KN

EZ

EV

IĆ: B

INA

RY

PIT

CH

(STI

LL F

RA

ME

)

29

misliti film...

think cinematography...

The archive of photographic and film images of the 20th century as part of the collective memory is kept in various works of

artists, pointing to the role of contemporary art in establishing

connections with the past. Artists have developed different practices of deconstruction and interpretation of archives, pointing out the importance of rereading and establishing a relationship with the

past. Various forms of appropriation of different media-based contents, like photographs and film through found footage become a resource that constitutes a new artistic space “implying some sort of epistemology of oblivion, reconstruction of the horizon”. We can

understand the work with archive material in artistic practices as a critical methodology used to constitute or shift meanings. Through research of the archives, artists question the ways of

construction of the past, using mostly photographic and film records in order to re-think and review historical positions, the questions of truth, document, identity, memory, trauma, loss, marking an

almost instinctive need to reconstruct the reality that has eluded. Techniques of remake permeate artistic genres and media and

reconstruct stories, history and culture.

SA

RA

H W

OO

D: F

OR

CU

LTU

RA

L P

UR

PO

SE

S O

NLY

(STI

LL F

RA

ME

)

30

think film

For Cultural Purposes Only by Sarah Wood, as an animated-experimental film essay, contemplates the cultural importance of

the film archive and the social importance of cinema in constituting identity and cultural memory. The represented fragments of the

history of Palestinian film, from the archive destroyed in 1982, are

memories of a history of non-existing cinematography. In Archive Fever, Derrida claims that there is no political power without the control of archives, basically the control of memory, pointing out how societies

differ according to the accessibility of their archives, their formation and interpretation. Various visual elements, levels of narration, elements

of image and text, moving and still image, animation, drawing, found footage as found archive material, intertwine to tell the story of the lost

archive of Palestinian film – the lost cinematography. Animated segments follow the narration of the interlocutor, they interpret memories,

drawings try to reconstruct the material where the film footage was lost and the found footage does that in places where it gives information on some film work, while index cards show a cataloguing system and the

existence of a once organized film material.

Following the idea of “data recovery” as part of a complex cycle gathering works based on repeated re-reading and returning as a process of recovery

of information, trying to connect and recover fragments of past events, activities or situations that disappeared in oblivion, Dalibor Martinis

SA

RA

H W

OO

D: F

OR

CU

LTU

RA

L P

UR

PO

SE

S O

NLY

(STI

LL F

RA

ME

)

31

misliti film...

goes back to some of his earlier works and intervenes in the sense of their reconstruction, while in the Egiptian Odessa Stairs he does not intervene in his own earlier work but in that of different media systems, that of cinema and that of information made by radio and television, in order to create a new work. Dalibor Martinis’ video

adopts the famous scene of the stairs in Odessa taken from the film Battleship Potemkin by Sergei Eisenstein, as a paradigmatic place

in the conceptualization of cinema and ideology, one of the key intersections of meaning of the relationship between cinema and politics, montage and revolution. In the Egiptian Odessa Stairs Dalibor Martinis takes over some visual elements of Eisenstein’s film as found footage (film ready made) and film citation and

merges them with the sounds of protesters, participants of the Arab Spring on Tahrir Square in Cairo in 2011. The recent events in Egypt we’ve been witnessing in the news give additional topical importance to this work which brings together two media, that of the black and white film from the avant-garde period and sound and images from

the internet, and two centuries, the 20th and the 21st.

Realized as photo-collages, photographic experiments using multiple expositions and multiple views – specific collages of negatives by

David Maljković, remind us of how film and collage (on a formal and semantic level) enable cinematographic decomposition, where the

DA

LIB

OR

MA

RT

INIS

: EG

YP

TIA

N O

DE

SS

A S

TAIR

S (S

TILL

FR

AM

E)

32

think film

perception in the form of a gap or fracture is established as a formal principle.12 The image of nostalgia, as Svetlana Boym points out, is the image of double exposition – the collision within an image, that of the present and the past represented at the same time.13 Recalling Frames by David Maljković represent scenes in which, at the same time, there

are fragments of images belonging to different time and different systems of representation. In them Maljković takes over selected shots from the

film The Trial (1962) by Orson Welles, with Anthony Perkins in the main role, shot on locations in Zagreb and at the Jadran Film studio, at the time

an important film studio and film production office, and connects them with photographs showing the present situation at the same locations in Zagreb, while his manipulation and multiplication of viewpoints

indicates a reorganization of the sense of time and space. In the complex narrative of this work, besides the specific interest for Orson Welles’

The Trial, the fate of Jadran Film as a reminder of the prosperity of the cinematographic production of the past, the author also points out the

processes of transformation of the urban facric of the city of Zagreb since the 1960s. The research of the historical, cultural and theoretical heritage of the socialist modernist project is Maljković’s continuous preoccupation

he systematically analyzes in his works. In Recalling Frames, David Maljković uses film as fiction and ideology, photographs as documents and artistic imagination to reconstruct a certain space, showing how

modes of representation of a place are created based on different

DA

VID

MA

LJK

OV

IĆ: R

EC

ALL

ING

FR

AM

ES

C/B

FO

TOG

RA

FIJ

A IZ

KO

LAŽ

A

NE

GA

TIV

A, B

/W P

RIN

T F

RO

M C

OLL

AG

E O

N N

EG

ATI

VE

33

misliti film...

fragments – layers from the immediate surroundings, stories, parts of history and culture that build and shape the process of thinking

and perception, where practices of cinema has a formative role, corresponding with the social and political context of the space they

were produced.

1 Andrew V. Uroskie: Film as Film and Cinema; The Arts in Question, UC Berkley, 2003.2 Jacques Ranciere: Cinematic Fable, Clio, Beograd, 2010.3 La pensée sur le cinéma est un parcours entre des points extrêmement distants: il y a d’un côté ce qui se passe dans la réalité d’une projection, et de l’autre ce qui constitue le cinéma comme un phénomène historique, social - ou philosophique. Jacques Rancière: L’affect indécis, interview, Cinephilosophie, Critique 692 – 693, 2005.4 Laura Mulvey: Visul Pleasure and Narrative Cinema, in: Feminist visual criticism and theory of visual arts, Centar za ženske studije, Zagreb (1999), p. 66.5 Jean Louis Baudry: Ideological effects of the basic cinematographic apparatus, in:

Film Theory Reader, Columbia University Press, NY (1985), str. 295 – 296.6 Teresa De Lauretis: Technologies of Gender: Essays on theory film and Fiction, IUP, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1987.) J. L. Baudry in 1975 used the term dispositif for the following meanings: 1. Disposition of technical devices for the distribution of certain mediatic realizations, 2. Mediatic realizations suited to this disposition, and 3. Mental structure of the audience produced by these realizations. See: Vladimir Biti: Pojmovnik suvremene književne teorije, Matica hrvatska, Zagreb, 1997.7 Peter Burger: Theory of the avant garde, Antibarbarus, Zagreb 2007. (p. 109)

8 transcript from the film, originally in English.9 Hollis Frampton: A lecture, in: On Camera Arts. The Writings of Hollis Frampton, MIT Press, 2009 (p. 125)10 ibid11 Thomas Zummer: Projection and Dis/embodiment: Genealogies of the virtual; in: Chrissie Iles: Into the light - Projected image in american art 1964 – 1977 (exhibition catalogue), Whitney Museum of American Art, 2002 (exhibition catalogue)12 James Donald: City and cinema, in: Visual culture (ed. Chris Jencks) , Jesenski i Turk, Zagreb 2002.13 Svetlana Boym: The Future of Nostalgia, Basic Books, 2001.

DA

VID

MA

LJK

OV

IĆ: R

EC

ALL

ING

FR

AM

ES

C/B

FO

TOG

RA

FIJ

A IZ

KO

LAŽ

A

NE

GA

TIV

A, B

/W P

RIN

T F

RO

M C

OLL

AG

E O

N N

EG

ATI

VE

34

think film

radovi …works

Cameron Gainer: The Shoot, video, 6’ (2002)

Ellie Krakow: Shine, single channel video, 5’ (2009)

Vladislav Knezević: Binary Pitch, HD video, 6’ 30” (2013) koncept i fotografija…concept & photography: Vladislav Knežević

Animacija i kompoziting… Animation & compositing: Mario Kalogjeradizajn zvuka…Sound design: Bojan Gagić

David Maljković: Recalling Frames (2010)c/b fotografije iz kolaža negativa,b/w print from collage on negative

Dalibor Martinis: Egyptian Odessa Stairs, 6’54, (2011)video, c/b i boja…b/w&color,

Mario Pfeifer: Yet Untitled [“Pieces of nature“], 11’ 30” (2008)16 mm film prebačen na High Definition Video16 mm film transferred to High Definition Video

boja, zvuk / colour, sound;

Sarah Wood: For Cultural Purposes Only, 8’ 25” (2009)eksperimentalno-animirani film, boja, c/b;

animation, experimental; color, b/w

35think film

misliti film...

Cameron Gainer je vizualni umjetnik koji u radu koristi različite medije. Izlagao je na samostalnim izložbama u Fabric Workshop and Museum u Philadelphiji i u Muzeju suvremene umjetnosti sveučilišta Južne Floride u Tampi te recentnim skupnim izložbama “Midnight Party”, Walker Art Center u Minneapolisu; “The Paranoia of Time”, Carter & Citizen Gallery u Los Angelesu; “Portal” u McClain Gallery u Houstonu. Za svoj je rad dobitnik nagrada i stipendija poput Pollock-Krasner, James L. McKnight Fellowship, istraživačke stipendije Jerome Foundation. Trenutno je Smithsonian Artist Research Fellow. Rođen je 1973. godine u SAD-u.Cameron Gainer is a visual artist who works in a diverse range of media. He has had solo museum exhibitions at the Fabric Workshop and Museum in Philadelphia, and the Museum of Contemporary Art at the University of South Florida in Tampa. Recent group exhibitions include “Midnight Party” at the Walker Art Center, Minneapolis; “The Paranoia of Time” at Carter & Citizen Gallery, Los Angeles; “Portal” at McClain Gallery, Houston. Recent awards and fellowships include a Pollock-Krasner grant, James L. McKnight Fellowship, and a Jerome Foundation grant for research. He is currently a Smithsonian Artist Research Fellow. Born in 1973, USA.

Ellie Krakow magistrirala je na Hunter Collegeu, a diplomski studij pohađala na sveučilištima Yale i Rhode Island School of Design. Ove je godine realizirala samostalnu izložbu Bring the Lights into the Show u galeriji Cuchifritos u New Yorku te je izlagala na skupnim izložbama u NARS Foundation i galerijama Hal Bromm, Thierry Goldberg i Canada Gallery, kao i International Studio and Curatorial Program, sve u New Yorku; te u Organhaus Art Space u Kini i Royal College of Art u Londonu. Boravila je na rezidencijama

Biografije...Biographies

36

think film

Skowhegan School of Painting and Sculpture, Yaddo i Abrons Arts Center. Dobitnica je stipendije Boomerang Fund for Artists. Živi i radi u New Yorku.Ellie Krakow earned her MFA from Hunter College and her BA through study at Yale and the Rhode Island School of Design. Recent exhibitions include a solo show at Cuchifritos Gallery, and group shows at NARS, Hal Bromm, Thierry Goldberg, Canada Gallery, and International Studio and Curatorial Program, all in NYC; and at Organhaus Art Space in China and The Royal College of Art in London. She has participated in residencies at Skowhegan School of Painting and Sculpture, Yaddo, and Abrons Arts Center; and was recently awarded a Boomerang Fund for Artists Grant. She is based in New York City.

Vladislav Knežević ( 1967.), studirao režiju na Akademiji dramske umjetnosti u Zagrebu i na De Vrije Academie (Audio-visual Dept.) u Den Haagu. Eksperimentalnim filmom, videom i zvukom bavi se od 1988. Bio je inicijator i organizator programa Reference to Difference (novi hrvatski video 1994 -1996), televizijske emisije o eksperimentalnom filmu i videu Videodrom(2002-2004), te suosnivač i selektor 25 FPS Internacionalnog festivala eksperimentalnog filma i videa (2005 – 2009). Redatelj je i koautor tv emisije Animatik (Hrt3)Radovi: Archeo 29 (2010.); reLocated (2005.); Under Construction (2003.); Full Range (2001./02.); Convergence (1997.); X Tactile Transition (1994./96.); The Test of the Infinite Dream (1992.); In the Colourbox (1989.)Vladislav Knežević (1967) graduated from the Academy of Dramatic Arts (TV and Film Direction Dept.) in Zagreb and De Vrije Academie (Audio-visual Dept.) in Den Haag. Since 1998 works

with experimental film, video and sound processing. Professionally works as a director for TV and various productions since 1993. He has initiated and organized several film programmes and presentations (Reference to Difference, Videodrome, 25 FPS International Experimental Film Festival, Animatik).Selected works: Archeo 29 (2010); reLocated (2005); Under Construction (2003); Full Range (2001/02); Convergence (1997); X Tactile Transition (1994/96); The Test of the Infinite Dream (1992); In the Colourbox (1989)

David Maljković, rođen 1973. u Rijeci. Radovima koji se kreću od filmskih instalacija, skulptura, crteža, kolaža i fotomontaža istražuje bogato modernističko nasljeđe bivše Jugoslavije. Sources in the Air je recentna retrospektivna izložba u organizaciji Van Abbe Muzeja iz Eindhovena, Baltic centra iz Velike Britanije te GAMeC-a iz Bergama. Samostalno je izlagao u bečkoj Secesiji; Sculpture Center, New York; “Temporary Projections” Georg Kargl galeriji, Beč; Muzeju Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía, Madrid; Kunstverein Hamburg (2007.); MoMA PS1 (2007.); Whitechapel Art Gallery, London (2007.); CAPC, Musee D’art Contemporain, Bordeaux (2007.), a među grupnim izložbama su one održane u Centru Georges Pompidou u Parizu (2011.); Power Plant u Torontu (2011.); MUSEION u Bolzanu, Italija (2010.); WIELS; “Mondernologies: Contemporary Artists Researching Modernity and Modernism,” MACBA Barcelona; Berlinskom Bijenalu (2008.). Radovi mu se nalaze u zbirkama Centre Pompidou, Pariz; David Roberts Foundation, London; FRAC des Pays de la Loire; Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam; Museum of Modern Art, New York; The Tate Collection, London.

37

misliti film...

of Art, Toronto 1991./2.). Za svoj rad nagrađivan je u Hrvatskoj te je osvojio više međunarodnih nagrada. Njegovi radovi nalaze se u zbirkama Muzeja suvremene umjetnosti u Zagrebu, Muzeja moderne umjetnosti (MoMA) u New Yorku, Stedelijk Museuma u Amsterdamu, Centra ZKM u Karlsruheu, New York Public Library, Kontakt, Erste Bank u Beču i dr. Do 2012. godine predavao je na Akademiji primjenjene umjetnosti u Rijeci.Dalibor Martinis (Zagreb, 1947), Croatian artist, graduated in 1971 at the Academy of Visual Arts in Zagreb. He has had numerous solo exhibitions, performances and projections and participated in numerous international exhibitions (Biennale in Venice, Sao Păulo, Kwangju, Dokumenta/ Kassel etc.), and on videofestivals (Berlin, Tokyo, Montreal, Locarno and elsewhere). He was awarded with various grants (Canada Council- Canada 1978, Jaica- Japan 1984, Artslink- USA 1994). He was a university guest lecturer in Croatia (Academy of Dramatic Art 1987-1991) and abroad (Ontario College of Art, Toronto 1991/2). His work has been awarded in Croatia and abroad where he has won several international awards. His works are part of collections at The Museum of Modern Art in Zagreb; The Museum of Modern Art, New York; Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam; ZKM, Karlsruhe; New York Public Library; Kontakt, Erste Bank, Vienna etc. Until 2012 he taught at the Academy of Applied Arts in Rijeka.

Mario Pfeifer je rođen 1981. u Dresdenu u Njemačkoj. Njegovi radovi se bave strukturama prezentiranja i konvencijama filmskog medija. Svaki svoj projekt osmišlja polazeći od specifičnog kulturnog konteksta, istražujući društveno-političku pozadinu u radovima koji se kreću od filmskih i video instalacija do fotografija i instalacija. Studirao je u Leipzigu (HGB) i Berlinu (UDK), 2008. godine je diplomirao

Born in 1973 in Rijeka, Croatia, David Maljković is known for his film installations, sculptures, drawings, collages and photomontages drawing on former Yugoslavia’s rich modernist legacy. Sources in the Air is a recent retrospective exhibition organized in Van Abbe Museum Eindhoven, at the Baltic, UK, and at the GAMeC in Bergamo. Solo shows include: Secession Vienna; SculptureCenter New York, “Temporary Projections” at the Georg Kargl Vienna, Museo Nacional Centro de Arte Reina Sofía, Madrid (2009-2010); Kunstverein Hamburg (2007); MoMA PS1 (2007); Whitechapel Art Gallery, London (2007), CAPC, Musee D’art Contemporain, Bordeaux (2007) and group exhibitions including: Centre Georges Pompidou, Paris (2011); Power Plant, Toronto (2011); MUSEION Bolzano, Italy (2010); WIELS; “Mondernologies: Contemporary Artists Researching Modernity and Modernism,” MACBA Barcelona; and Berlin Biennale (2008). His works are included in collections of Centre Pompidou, Paris, David Roberts Foundation, London, FRAC des Pays de la Loire, Stedelijk Museum, Amsterdam, Museum of Modern Art, New York, The Tate Collection, London

Dalibor Martinis (Zagreb, 1947.), hrvatski medijski umjetnik. Diplomirao je 1971. na Akademiji likovnih umjetnosti u Zagrebu. Jedan je od pionira video umjetnosti. Održao brojne samostalne izložbe, performanse i projekcije, i sudjelovao na brojnim međunarodnim izložbama. (Bijenala u Veneciji, Sao Păulu, Kwangjuu, Dokumenta/Kassel i dr.), te na videofestivalima (Berlin, Tokyo, Montreal, Locarno, i dr.). Bio je stipendistom (Canada Council/(Kanada 1978., Jaica/Japan 1984., Artslink/USA 1994.). Bio sveučilišnim gostom predavačem u Hrvatskoj (Akademija dramske umjetnosti 1987.-1991.) i inozemstvu (Ontario College

38

think film

na Städelschule u Frankfurtu. Fulbright fellow u Los Angelesu (California Institute of the Arts) 2008/09. Ostale stipendije i projekti vode ga u Bangkok, Mumbai, Marrakesh, Beirut i New York. Od 2005. živi u Berlinu.Izlagao je u Museum für Moderne Kunst, Frankfurt am Main; Los Angeles County Museum of Art; KW - Institute for Contemporary Art, Berlin; Frankfurter Kunstverein; Landesgalerie Linz, Austria. Projekcije/ festivali: MoMA PS1, New York; Anthology Film Archives, New York; London International Documentary Film Festival; Images Festival, Toronto; Moca Detroit; Museum Ludwig, Cologne; Arsenal, Berlin i Centre Pompidou u Parizu. Maria Pfeifera zastupa KOW.Mario Pfeifer, born in 1981 in Dresden, Germany. His work explores representational structures and conventions in the medium of film. Conceiving each project out of a specific cultural situation, researches social-political backgrounds into a practice ranging from film and video installations to photographs and text installations. Studied in Leipzig (HGB) and Berlin (UDK), graduated at Städelschule Frankfurt in 2008. Fulbright fellow in Los Angeles (California Institute of the Arts) in 2008/09. Further grants and projects in Bangkok, Mumbai, Marrakesh, Beirut and New York. Since 2005 based in Berlin.Exhibited at Museum für Moderne Kunst, Frankfurt am Main; Los Angeles County Museum of Art; KW - Institute for Contemporary Art, Berlin; Frankfurter Kunstverein; Landesgalerie Linz, Austria. Screenings/festivals: MoMA PS1, New York; Anthology Film Archives, New York; London International Documentary Film Festival; Images Festival, Toronto; Moca Detroit; Museum Ludwig, Cologne; Arsenal, Berlin and the Centre Pompidou in Paris. Mario Pfeifer is represented by KOW.

Sarah Wood se posljednjih deset godina bavi filmom. Njezini projekti istražuju ideje arhiva putem upotrebe found footagea. Rođena je u Londonu 1967. godine. Radi kao filmski autor i selektor filmskih programa. Trenutno radi na filmskom projektu o britanskoj filmskoj zvijezdi Diani Dors i njenoj ranoj karijeri u Rank Studios.Festivali/ projekcije: Oberhausen International Short Film Festival, Rotterdam International Film Festival, BAM New York, Tate Modern, London; Tampere Film festival, 25 FPS, Zagreb; Impakt, Utrecht (NL)Filmografija: Manifesto for Love (2003.); Living Space (2003.), Surrender (2005.), I Want To Be a Secretary (2006.), For Cultural Purposes Only (2009.) Sarah Wood has been working in film for the last ten years. Her film projects have been an exploration into ideas of the archive using found footage. Born in London in 1967. Works as a filmmaker and film programmer. Currently researching a film project about the British film star Diana Dors and her early career at Rank Studios.Festivals/screenings: Oberhausen International Short Film Festival, Rotterdam International Film Festival, BAM New York, Tate Modern, London; Tampere Film festival, 25 FPS, Zagreb; Impakt, Utrecht (NL)Filmography: Manifesto for Love (2003); Living Space (2003), Surrender (2005), I Want To Be a Secretary (2006), For Cultural Purposes Only (2009)

39

misliti film...

Adeena MeySuvremena umjetnost i parafilm

Contemporary art and paracinema

40 misliti film...

think film

Uslijed sve veće prisutnosti “filma” u suvremenoj umjetnosti, o čemu svjedoče i taksonomske klasifikacije kao što su “post-film”1, “izložbeni film”2, “treći film”3 ili pak nešto umjereniji pojmovi poput “filma umjetnika”, cijeli spektar umjetničkih praksi referira se na niz eksperimenata povezanih s različitim oblicima “proširenja umjetnosti”, koje u radu “Expanded Arts Diagram” iz 1966. objedinjuje Georges Maciunas.4 Kada je riječ o filmskoj formi, ta je interakcija vidljiva upravo na mjestu na kojemu film ispituje vlastite granice. Strategije nekih suvremenih umjetnika, premda se izričito ne pozivaju na to nasljeđe, nanovo uvode, nastavljaju ili postaju određeni historijski modaliteti dekonstrukcije ili analize “klasičnog” filmskog dispozitiva ili samog “filmskog materijala”. Način nadilaženja filmskog medija o kojemu je ovdje riječ jest “parafilm”, koji se ponekad smatra podkategorijom proširenog filma.5 Dok prošireni film upućuje na niz eksperimenata koji premiještaju događaj projekcije konvencionalnog prikazivanja na jednome ekranu pribjegavajući multipliciranju ekrana i performansu, parafilm označava skup produkcija koje postupcima dubinske analize dispozitiva naglasak stavljaju na njegove materijalne, tehničke ili pak fenomenološke sastavnice: projektor, filmsku vrpcu, projiciranu svjetlost, vrijeme. No ipak, obje su prakse povezane utoliko što i jedna i druga rade na ponovnom prostornom i institucionalnom određivanju mjesta filma i njegovih materijala.

Činjenica da se film preselio u muzeje i galerije, ili jednostavnije, sve veća prisutnost pokretne slike na tim mjestima, danas je središnja tema

rasprave, koja ponajviše dolazi iz kritičarskih i kustoskih krugova, i tek u manjoj mjeri onih akademskih. Ta je rasprava uglavnom fokusirana na tri problema: u prvome redu to je pitanje temporalnosti i trajanja umjetničkog djela te posljedično tomu pitanje izazova povezanih sa sudjelovanjem publike i načinom na koji ona razumijeva ili konzumira sliku.6 Drugo pitanje je ono koje izranja iz prethodnog, primjerice, preko ideje o “sukobu dispozitiva” koju je formulirao Raymond Bellour (ili o mračnoj dvorani nasuprot “white cube-a”)7, i na kraju razilaženja oko pitanja celuloida ili materijalnosti filma koja dovode do razgraničenja svijeta umjetnosti i svijeta filma. Zaista, prisutnost “originalnih” medija na umjetničkim izložbama odgovara logici nerazlikovanja između numeričkog i analognog a koja prije svega ima ekonomske razloge. S druge strane, ponovno uspostavljanje dijalektike između “novih” i “starih” medija, to uvođenje filmskog materijala (iznova) stvara auru umjetničkom djelu i upisuje film u sustav jedinstvenosti i nereproducibilnosti.8

Parafilm, koji se veže uz Kena Jacobsa i jedan dio njegovih performativnih radova u kojima je filmska slika proizvod jedne ili više projekcija bez filmske vrpce (poznati pod nazivom Shadow Plays i Nervous Magic Lantern), u svome zahtjevu za pozicioniranjem “u blizinu”, “rame uz rame”, nudi mogućnost za film izvan njegovih načina postojanja i njegove “distribucije” u oviru “klasičnog” dispozitiva. Osim toga, premda se služi drugim sredstvima, koja nisu projektor i filmska vrpca, parafilm je, prema Jacobsu, “paralelan”, čak “istovrijedan” drugim

41

misliti film...

oblicima filmske umjetnosti.9

Ideja da “film” jednostavno postoji izvan svake kontingencije ili nekog materijalnog, tehničkog, institucionalnog ili gledateljevog protokola, nalazi svoj najčišći izraz kod jednog drugog filmskog umjetnika, Hollisa Framptona, kojeg jednako kao i Jacobsa vežemo uz strukturalni film. Za Framptona je svaki fenomen “parafilmski” čim mu je jedan element zajednički s filmom, što podrazumijeva “izmjenjivost ovisno o prostoru i vremenu.”10. Kod Framptona se takvo shvaćanje parafilma ostvaruje u praksi kao i u teoriji, primjerice prilikom njegovog performansa-konferencije A Lecture (1968.) ili u teorijskom tekstu “Za metapovijest filma: bilješke i hipoteze iz zajedničkog polazišta”, teksta čiji je teorijsko-fikcijski sadržaj i programatski budući da u njemu postavlja temelje za svoj projekt Magellan čiji je cilj, ni manje ni više, bio stvaranje nove povijesti filma.

Bilo da parafilm, prema Jacobsu, redistribuira filmske elemente u drugačiji raspored od onoga koji konceptualizira teorija filma, ili da, prema Framptonu, nudi epistemologiju vremena i prostora (koja se pokazuje u metapovijesnom projektu ili “beskonačnom filmu”), njegovi skriveni izazovi temelje se na mogućnostima propitivanja brojnih otklona od osnovnih filmskih elemenata u dispozitivima prije, za vrijeme i poslije njega. Ipak, sa stajališta akademske i disciplinarne logike, organizirane, ugrubo rečeno, oko metoda čija uporaba služi za ostvarivanje telosa, parafilm, kao epistemologija, podvostručuje se u nejasnoj epistemi. Nedavno je Jonathan Walley taj pojam aktualizirao na području filmskih studija. Polazeći od čitanja instalacija Paula Sharitsa,

Walley u njegovom postupku ukazuje na prelazak s flicker filma na ono što naziva “elementarnim primarnim filmom” (elemental primary cinema), koji je povezan s Long Film for Ambient Light (1975.) Anthonyja McCalla – filma u trajanju od 24 sata, nastalog u jednoj sobi u praznom loftu, s jednom žaruljom koja visi na sredini, listovima bijelog papira koji reflektiraju svjetlost i sheme na kojoj je prikazan vremenski slijed rada te “bilješke u trajanju” (Notes in Duration) koje kritiziraju razdvajanje tzv. vremenskih umjetnosti od slikarstva ili kiparstva. Walley predlaže sljedeću definiciju parafilma:

“Parafilm identificira čitav spektar fenomena koje smatramo “filmskima”, ali koji nisu uključeni u tradicionalno definiran filmski materijal. Filmski radovi kojima se bavim priznaju postojanje filmskih obilježja izvan standarnog filmskog dispozitiva i posljedično tomu odbijaju tezu o specifičnosti medija koja je u središtu većine esencijalističkih teorija i praksi prema kojima se umjetnička forma filma definira tom specifičnošću.”11

Za Walleya parafilm intenzivira i nadilazi model strukturalnog filma tako što ne stvara toliko “rascjepkani model cjelokupnog filmskog procesa”, kako to navodi David James, nego “rascjepkani model cjelokupnog koncepta filma”.12 Razmatrajući različite postupke podrivanja teze o specifičnosti medija i greenbergovskog modernizma, Walley parafilm dovodi u vezu s konceptualnom umjetnošću slično načinu na koji kritičarka Lucy Lippard u određenim postupcima prepoznaje “dematerijalizaciju umjetnosti”13, a koja

42

think film

se ostvaruje kada se filmu pristupa kao “ideji”, a ne više kao tehničkoj aparaturi – odnosno dematerijalizirajući ga. Tako, paralelno s prijedlogom da se iznova preispita uloga filmskog medija – u dobu post-medija koje prema Rosalind Krauss, zahtijeva da ga se iznova izumi, ili vrati prema slikarstvu, kiparstvu, filmu14 – Walley predlaže da se parafilm “učini čitljivim – doslovce da se omogući njegovo čitanje – a to znači učiniti ga podložnim ispisivanju. Dati mu ime i mjesto unutar konceptualnih i institucionalnih dimenzija modaliteta filmskih praksi koje su uobličile njegovu povijest znači učiniti gestu prema omogućavanju upisivanje parafilma u filmske studije.”15

Maeve Connonlly u knjizi The Place of Artists’ Cinema16 povezuje Walleyeve ideje parafilma s vlastitim istraživanjima: u ovom slučaju o artikulaciji prostornih i društvenih dimenzija filmova umjetnika u različitim kontekstima suvremene umjetnosti – muzeju, bijenalima, umjetničkim sajmovima, kao i u narudžbama koje su realizirane na javnim mjestima ili u specifičnim prostornim projektima (site specific). Zaista, po svome “prijelaznom” statusu parafilm daje mogućnost genealoškog određenja različitog od linearnih narativa koji eksperimentalni film ili videoumjetnost čine prethodnicima filmova umjetnika.

Prevela s francuskog Nataša Medved

Izvorno objavljeno u : Cinéma élargi, “Décadrages”, no. 21-22, zima 2012; F. Bovier & A. Mey (ur.).

1 Vidi: Volker Pantenburg, “Post Cinema?” Movies, Museums, Mutations”, Site, br. 24, Residuals, 2008, str. 4-5.2 Pojam se pripisuje Jean-Christopheu Royouxu, “Cinéma d’exposition : l’espacement de la durée”, Art Press br. 262, studeni 2000, str. 36-41.3 Pascale Cassagnau, Future Amnesia. Enquête sur un troisième cinéma, Paris, Editions Isthme, 2007.4 Vidi: George Maciunas, “Expanded Arts Diagram”, u: Hans Sohm (ur.), Happening und Fluxus, Köln, Kölnischer Kunstverein, 1970.5 Vidi uvodnik Davida Jamesa, u: Millenium Film Journal, br. 43/4 (“Paracinema/Performance”), ljeto-jesen 2005.6 O izložbi filma kao izložbi vremena vidi: Dominique Païni, Le temps exposé. Le cinéma de la salle au musée, Paris, Cahiers du cinéma, 2002. O problematici sudjelovanja publike vidi: Volker Pantenburg, op. cit.7 Raymond Bellour, “La querelle des dispositifs”, Art Press, br. 262, 1999, str. 42-52. 8 Analizu prisutnosti i fetišizacije filma u galerijama donosi Erika Balsom u: “A cinema in the gallery, a cinema in ruins”, Screen, sv. 50, br. 4, 2009, str. 411-427. Balsom propituje način na koji se pitanja o specifičnosti medija i materijalnosti svojstvene filmskoj vrpci reartikuliraju u dimenziju zastarjelosti i svojevrsnu “ruinofiliju”, karakterističnih za jedan dio suvremenih praksi. 9 Kako je sam napisao u tekstu u kojemu se osvrće na neke od svojih performansa: “To što sam nazvao parafilmom, stvari poput igre sjena, moglo bi se usporediti s božanskom bljeskovitošću kazališta. Richard Levine nije se slagao s time smatrajući da parafilm, kao paramedicinsko i paralegalno, ukazuje na nižu vrstu filma, ne na stvarnu stvar. To ne bi bio ekvivalent filmu stvoren drugim sredstvima koja nisu filmska ili upotrebom filma na nestandardni način; na način koji mu je istovrsan ili paralelan, a to je ono što sam ja mislio pokazati.” Ken Jacobs, “Painted Air. The Joys and Sorrows of Evanescent Cinema”, Millenium Film Journal., br. 43/44 (“Paracinema/Performance”), 2005, str. 40.10 “Smatram da je svaki fenomen parafilmski (paracinematic), čim mu je jedan element zajednički s filmom, odnosno čim je izmjenjiv ovisno o prostoru i vremenu.” On the Camera Arts and Consecutive Matters: The Writings of Hollis Frampton, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2009, str. 199.11 Jonathan Walley, “The Material of Film and the Idea of Cinema: Contrasting Practices in Sixties and Seventies Avant-Garde Film”, October, sv. 103, zima 2003, str. 18. U eseju je Ken Jacobs naveden kao prvi koji je pojam parafilm upotrijebio u okviru avngardnog filma. 12 Jonathan Walley, op. cit., str. 28.13 Lucy Lippard, Six Years. The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972, Berkeley/Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1997.14 Op. cit., str. 29-30.15 Jonathan Walley, “The Paracinema of Anthony McCall and Tony Conrad”, u: Alexander Graf i Dietrich Scheunemann (ur.), Avant-Garde Critical Studies, Avant-Garde Film, Amsterdam/New York, Rodopi, 2007, str. 379.16 Maeve Connolly, The Place of the Artists’ Cinema. Space, Site and Screen, Bristol/Chicago, Intellect, 2009.

43

misliti film...

Adeena MeyContemporary art and paracinema

Considering the growing presence of “cinema” in contemporary art, witnessed by taxonomic classifications such as “post-cinema”1, “exhibition cinema”2, “third cinema”3 or the somewhat more moderate terms like “artist cinema”, a whole range of artistic practices refers to a series of experiments connected to different forms of “expanded art”, brought together by George Maciunas in his work “Expanded Arts Diagram” in 1966.4 When we speak of cinema form, this interaction is visible precisely where cinema tests its own limits. The strategies of some contemporary artists, although not directly invoking this kind of heritage, reintroduce, continue or become some sort of historical modalities of deconstruction or analysis of “classic” cinema dispositive or the very “film material”. A way to overcome the film medium dealt with here is “paracinema”, which is, at times, considered a sub-category of expanded film.5 While the expanded film indicates a series of experiments transferring the projection event of conventional screening on one screen and resorting to a multiplication of screens and performance, paracinema denotes a set of productions which, through procedures of in depth analysis of the dispositive, stress its material, technical or phenomenological components: the projector, the film tape, the projected light, the time. However, both practices are connected in as much as both work on a repeated spatial and institutional determination of the place of film and its materials.

The fact that film has moved to museums and galleries, in simple terms, the growing presence of moving images in such places, is the central topic of discussion today, brought forth before all by critics and curators and less so by academic circles. The discussion is mostly focused on three issues: first and foremost the issue of temporality and duration of a work of art and consequently the issue of the challenges relative to the participation of the audience and the way it understands or consumes the image.6 The second issue is the one emerging from the previous, for example, through the idea of the “conflict of dispositives” formulated by Raymond Bellour (or on the dark room as opposed to the white cube)7, and in the end the dissent around the question of celluloid or the material quality of film leading to a separation of the world of art and the world of film. Indeed, the presence of “original” media in artist exhibitions corresponds to the logic of a lack of differentiation between the numeric and the analogous for economic reasons above all. On the other hand, the reestablishment of the dialectics between the “new” and the “old” media, the introduction of film material (again) creates an aura to the work of art and includes film in a system of uniqueness and irreproducibility.8

Paracinema, associated with Ken Jacobs and part of his performative works in which the film image is a product of one or more projections without film tape (known as Shadow Plays and Nervous Magic Lantern), in its demand to be positioned “near”, “shoulder to shoulder”, offers a possibility for cinema outside its existing form and its “distribution”

44

think film

within the “classical” dispositive. Besides, although it uses other means that are not the projector or the film tape, paracinema is, according to Jacobs, a “parallel”, even “equal” to other forms of cinema. The idea that “cinema” simply exists outside every contingency or some material, technical, institutional or viewer’s protocol, finds its purest expression with another film artist, Hollis Frampton, connected with structural film just like Jacobs. For Frampton, every phenomenon pertains to “paracinema” as soon as one of its elements is common to film, which implies “interchangeability depending on space and time”.10 In Frampton, such an understanding of paracinema is realized in both practice and theory, like on occasion of his performance-conference A Lecture (1968) or in the theoretical text “For the meta history of film: commonplace notes and hypotheses”, whose theoretical-fictional content is also programmatic since it lays the foundation for his project Magellan which aimed at no less than creating a new history of film.Whether, according to Jacobs, paracinema redistributes filmic elements into a different disposition than that conceptualized by the theory of film or, according to Frampton, it offers an epistemology of time and space (evident in the meta historical project or “endless film”), its hidden challenges are based on the possibilities to question the numerous steps aside from the basic film elements in dispositives appearing before, during or after it. However, from the standpoint of academic and disciplinary logic organized, to put it roughly, around methods whose usage serves the purpose

of realizing the telos, paracinema, like epistemology, is doubled in an unclear episteme. This term has recently been made topical by Jonathan Walley in the field of film studios. Starting from the reading of Paul Sharits’ installations, Walley in his procedure indicates the passage from flicker film to what he calls elemental primary cinema, connected to the Long Film for Ambient Light (1975) by Anthony McCall – a 24-hour-film created in a room in an empty loft, with a single light bulb hanging in the center, sheets of white paper reflecting the light and schemes showing the timeline of the work and notes in duration that criticize the separation of the so-called time arts from painting or sculpture. Walley proposes the following definition of paracinema:“Paracinema identifies an array of phenomena that are considered „cinematic“ but that are not embodied in the materials of film as traditionally defined. That is, the film works I am addressing recognize cinematic properties outside the film apparatus, and therefore reject the medium-specific premise of most essentialist theory and practice that the art form of cinema is defined by the specific medium of film.”11

For Walley, paracinema intensifies and goes beyond the model of structural film so that it does not create the “fragmented model of the whole cinematic process”, as stated by David James, but rather a “fragmented model of the whole concept of film.”12 Considering various attempts to undermine the thesis on the specificity of the medium and greenberglike modernism, Walley

45

misliti film...

brings paracinema into connection with conceptual art just like the critic Lucy Lippard in some procedures recognizes the “dematerialization of art”13, which is realized when cinema is approached as an “idea” and not so much as a technical apparatus – i.e. by dematerializing it. In that way, parallel to the proposal to reconsider the role of the film medium – in the period of post-media which, according to Rosalind Krauss, demands to be reinvented or directed back to painting, sculpture, film14 – Walley proposes to make paracinema “readable – to literally enable one to reread it – meaning to make it susceptible to inteventions. Giving it a name and place within the conceptual and institutional dimensions of the modalities of film practices which shaped its history, means to make a gesture toward the possibility to make paracinema part of film studies.”15

Maeve Connolly in her book The Place of Artists’ Cinema16 connects Walley’s ideas on paracinema to her own research: in this case into the articulation of spatial and social dimensions of artist films in various contexts of contemporary art – museum, biennales, art fairs, as well as commissions realized in public places or site specific. Indeed, due to its “transient” status, paracinema gives the possibility of a genealogical determination differing from the linear narratives making experimental film or video art the predecessors of artist films.

Originally published in: Cinéma élargi, “Décadrages”, no. 21-22, winter 2012; F. Bovier & A. Mey (ed.).

46

1 See: Volker Pantenburg, “Post Cinema?” Movies, Museums, Mutations”, Site, no. 24, Residuals, 2008, pp. 4-5.2 The term is attributed to Jean-Christophe Royoux, “Cinéma d’exposition : l’espacement de la durée”, Art Press no. 262, Nov 2000, pp. 36-41.3 Pascale Cassagnau, Future Amnesia. Enquête sur un troisième cinéma, Paris, Editions Isthme, 2007.4 See: George Maciunas, “Expanded Arts Diagram”, in: Hans Sohm (ed.), Happening und Fluxus, Köln, Kölnischer Kunstverein, 1970.5 See the introduction by David James, in: Millenium Film Journal, no. 43/4 (“Paracinema/Performance”), summer-fall 2005.6 On the exhibition of film as an exhibition of time see: Dominique Païni, Le temps exposé. Le cinéma de la salle au musée, Paris, Cahiers du cinéma, 2002. On the participation of the audience see: Volker Pantenburg, op. cit.7 Raymond Bellour, “La querelle des dispositifs”, Art Press, no. 262, 1999, pp. 42-52. 8 An analysis of the presence and fetishization of film in galleries is brought by Erika Balsom in: “A cinema in the gallery, a cinema in ruins”, Screen, vol. 50, no. 4, 2009, pp. 411-427. Balsom questions the way the issues on the specificity of the medium and the material quality of the film tape are rearticulated in a dimension of obsoleteness and a sort of “ruinophilia”, characteristic for a part of modern practices 9 He wrote in a text dealing with some of his performances: “ What I got to calling paracinema, things like shadowplay, would cross into the divine transiency of theater. Richard Levine disapproved, saying paracinema like paramedic and paralegal indicated a lesser cinema, not the real thing, not an equivalent cinema created by other than filmic means or by using film in other than standard ways; equivalent, or parallel to, is what I had meant to convey. ” Ken Jacobs, “Painted Air. The Joys and Sorrows of Evanescent Cinema”, Millenium Film Journal., no. 43/44 (“Paracinema/Performance”), 2005, p. 40.10 “ To my mind any phenomenon is paracinematic if it shares one element with cinema, modularity with respect to space or time.” On the Camera Arts and Consecutive Matters: The Writings of Hollis Frampton, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2009, p. 199.11 Jonathan Walley, “The Material of Film and the Idea of Cinema: Contrasting Practices in Sixties and Seventies Avant-Garde Film”, October, vol. 103, winter 2003, p. 18. In the essay, Ken Jacobs is stated as the first to use the term paracinema within the framework of avant-garde cinema. 12 Jonathan Walley, op. cit., str. 28.13 Lucy Lippard, Six Years. The Dematerialization of the Art Object from 1966 to 1972, Berkeley/Los Angeles, University of California Press, 1997.14 Op. cit., pp. 29-30.15 Jonathan Walley, “The Paracinema of Anthony McCall and Tony Conrad”, in: Alexander Graf and Dietrich Scheunemann (ed.), Avant-Garde Critical Studies, Avant-Garde Film, Amsterdam/New York, Rodopi, 2007, p. 379.16 Maeve Connolly, The Place of the Artists’ Cinema. Space, Site and Screen, Bristol/Chicag

think film str. 45

CIP - Katalogizacija u publikacijiSveučilišna knjižnica u Puli

UDK 7.038.53:791.43>(083.824)

BENČIĆ, Branka Cinemaniac 2013 : misliti film = think film

: 21. srpnja-6. kolovoza 2013, MMC Luka, Pula /<tekstovi, texts Branka Benčić, Adeena Mey ;

prijevod, translations Iva Štekar ... et al.> ;fotografije, photographs David Maljković ... et al.>.

- Pula : Udruga MMC Luka, 2013.

Bibliografske bilješke.ISBN 978-953-99730-9-2

1. Mey, Adeena

misliti film... misliti film...

nakladnik…publisher Udruga MMC LUKA, Istarska 30, Pula T +385 98 405527 www.mmcluka.hr, mmcluka@mmcluka.hr

za nakladnika…for the publisher Mirjana Grahovac - VojinovićUrednica...Editor Branka Benčić

Tekstovi...Texts Branka Benčić, Adeena MeyFotografije...Images Ljubaznošću umjetnika /

Courtesy of the artists Recalling Frames ljubaznošću/courtesy David Maljkovic, Sprüth Magers Berlin London

Prijevod...Translations Iva Štekar (engleski), Nataša Medved (francuski)Lektura...Proofreading Miodrag Kalčić Kina

Dizajn...Design Studio Bilić_MullerPartner Festival igranog filma u Puli - Pula Film Festival

www.pulafilmfestival.hrTisak...Print Kersch

Naklada...Number of copies 350 Postav izložbe...Exhibition set up Branka Benčić

Tehnički postav izložbe...Technical set-up Miro Ploj

Program je realiziran sredstvima Grada Pule, Hrvatskog audiovizualnog centra,

Ministarstva kulture Republike Hrvatske, Istarske županije, TZ Grada Pule

The program has been made possible with the funding provided by: City of Pula; Croatian Audiovisual Center; Ministry of Culture,

Republic of Croatia; Region of Istria; Tourist Office Pula

impressum