Quote taken from Hjorth, L. 2007 ed., Waiting for Immediacy Catalogue, Yonsei University: Seoul.

“It is as if the storing, just like the whimsical nature of digital media that can so easily be deleted, is not necessarily for the actual return and reviewing. It is not about leaving a trace in the world like analogue photography, but instead it is about the process of affect that marks the moment by a series of gestures. Click, view and store – that is the experience of everyday life to a theatre of spectres that haunt the hangover of visuality. In the 21st century, the visual is overruled by haptic as an experience and sense of place. This is the dance of waiting … for immediacy.”

Immediacy is about capturing and celebrating the moment. It is ritualistic. It is not meant to be stored as historical artefact or proof of life – or perhaps in some ways as proof of identity on social media. It is about focussing all phenomenological possibilities into one distilled click and capture. A phenomenological focus. A focus on things-as-idealised there and then. These moments therefore must necessarily be connected to our desires and forward projections of how we see ourselves in the world. They are world-affirming.

In my recent mobile video practice I have for various vague reasons decided to work on things out-of-focus. Perhaps I could pitch my video practice as anti-immediate?

In reference to Douglas Gomery’s ‘The Hollywood Studio System: 1930 – 1949’ and questions such as: ‘does mass culture give the people what they want, or convince them to want what they get?’ I have drawn on Post-Modern analysis and history to collate some thoughts:

From Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy –

“The later nineteenth century is the age of modernity as an achieved reality, where science and technology, including networks of mass communication and transportation, reshape human perceptions. There is no clear distinction, then, between the natural and the artificial in experience {…} A consequence of modernism is what postmodernists might refer to as de-realisation.  De-realisation affects both the subjects and the objects of experience, such that their sense of identity, constancy, and substance is upset or dissolved {…} Kierkegaard, for example, describes modern society as a network of relations in which individuals are levelled into an abstract phantom known as ‘the public’. The modern public, in contrast to ancient and medieval communities, is a creation of the press, which is the only instrument capable of holding together the mass of unreal individuals ‘who never are and never can be united in an actual situation or organisation’. In this sense, society has become a realisation of abstract thought, held together by an artificial and all – pervasive medium speaking for everyone and for no one.”

Quotes taken from Kierkegaard, Soren; 1846, The Present Age, Alexander Dru (trans.), New York: Harper & Row, 1962.

The essay film – something to do with the personal. A view; an experiment; a meditation.

It is not necessarily only reflective or self-conscious in style as Contempt (Godard) might be considered.

The American Heritage dictionary: “A short literary composition on a single subject, usually presenting the personal views of the author.”

The essay tracks a persons thoughts as they follow lines of reasoning to undo a mental knot. It is also the medium by which the thinking takes place. It facilitates the reasoning. An alternative to Socratic dialogues for instance.

“Readers must feel included in a true conversation, allowed to follow the rough mental processes of contradiction and digression and yet aware of a formal shapeliness developing underneath.” (Lopate)

The definite qualities of the essay-film as according to Lopate:

1) must have words in the form of dialogue or text (the corollary would be that any visual medium – a political poster or an ad – could be taken as an essay)
2) Must represent a single voice – or take the appearance of a single voice.
3) The text must represent the author’s attempt to work out some reasoned line of discourse on a problem.
4) The text must impart more than information. It must represent a strong personal point of view. There is a difference here between journalistic and essayistic.
5) The overall language of the text needs to be as eloquent and as interesting as possible. Lopate suggests a cultural standard to bare when reasoning in discourse.

” … a Markerian nostalgia for the escaping present, and a melancholy over the inherently receding reality of photographed images.”

This sense of time and awareness of the inadequacy of mechanical reproduction of time allows Marker to project an ‘historical understanding onto otherwise bland or neutral footage.”

In Sunless recollecting and rewriting an inextricably linked.

Sunless suggests some form of prophecy for a new age of communication, technology and globalisation – which to a large extent is true of Marker’s vision – though the personal, essayistic form inspired by such works seems never to have arrived.

A personal vision does not equate to a personal view.

The camera as a device for recording thoughts: it has a tendency to provide its own thoughts. That is, there are always unintended and accidental consequences of the recording and re-ordering of time and space. This is the foundation to the topic of cinema as a machine for thinking as a topic for discussion.

There is a hint in all this toward the matter of the autonomy of cinema and film form.

Notes from

Globalization; or the logic of cultural hybridization: the case of the Korean wave. (Woongjae Ryoo 2009)

The article states: ‘… that local cultures are now thoroughly interfused with the global’. (p138) – this is a good starting assumption to premise the need for change in Australian film aesthetic and production. The argument will also need to refine the idea that globalisation – global culture – somehow homogenizes local values. There is a pervasive fear in the discourse – as i’ve encountered it thus far – that minority voices and values somehow get lost under the weight of (or be transcended by) a ‘mainstream’ grand narrative. This is post-colonial/postmodern theory.

Article is otherwise narrow and provides not much insight into structures of cultural/economic development in Korea. It has an anti-capitalist tone and doesn’t fully engage the positive aspects of competition and a creative economic drive.

Korean State Cultural Policy

“The government, for example, brought in a registration system for film producers between the early 1960s and the early 1980s. Only registered film producers could produce motion pictures and import foreign films” (Dal Yong Jin citing Korean Film Commission Research Report, 2002) This created a monopoly which stifled growth.

Q: to extent does Australia’s funding processes replicate such a control over the means of production and in turn to extent is there a monopoly, government or otherwise, over the film industry.

The impact of direct distribution from Hollywood – distribution and trade practices.

transnationalization of the Korean film industry – active foreign investment in the domestic market – i.e. Hollywood distributing directly into the Korean market without a domestic go-between.

What was the structure of the relationship between foreign forces and domestic forces in the growth of the national film industry?

” … the government enacted the Motion Picture Promotion Law in 1995 … ” to provide incentives for cooperate capital to enter the film industry.

“The government reclassified the movie business from a service industry to a manufacturing industry in 1994. As a result, for the first time in decades, Korean film producers could easily finance their films by borrowing from banks.”

The question of cultural identity in film

Rather than a policy of cultural identity, a screen quota system is essential to maintaining cultural sovereignty:

‘ … the government did not want to change the screen quota system on the grounds that films should be excluded from free trade principles because protecting the Korean film industry is tantamount to maintaining Korea’s cultural identity.’

The issue needs to be framed not as an ideological and cultural issue but as an economic issue.

“The Wall Street Journal observed that the Korean government acknowledged that cultural industries, including films, could boost the economy in the late 1990s”

Wilhelm Worringer posits a spectrum for the impulse behind art – the extremities of which can be defined as an impulse towards empathy at one end and an impulse towards abstraction at the other.

The fundamental notion at the heart of Worringer’s thesis is that beauty derives from our sense of being able to identify with an object; empathy. This has clear relationships with phenomenology and is a starting point for further research. Worringer is looking to understand the reasons behind how and why a human being is driven or drawn towards a work of art. This will inevitably have to include psychology – the level of the individual – and zeitgeist – the level of the broader culture.

Worringer argues that representational art produces satisfaction from our objectified delight in the self, reflecting a confidence in the world as it is as in Renaissance art. By contrast, the urge to abstraction, as exemplified by Egyptian, Byzantine, primitive, or modern expressionist art, articulates a totally different response to the world: it expresses man s insecurity. Thus in historical periods of anxiety and uncertainty, man seeks to abstract objects from their unpredictable state and transform them into absolute, transcendental forms. Abstraction and Empathy also has a sociological dimension, in that the urge to create fixed, abstract, and geometric forms is a response to the modern experience of industrialization and the sense that individual identity is threatened by a hostile mass society.

from

Abstraction and Empathy: A Contribution to the Psychology of Style

——

Marxist thought – the dialectic approach to ‘knowing’ history. Criticism of capitalist culture to reduce the past to a series of stylistic effects (Frederic Jameson). First, the inherent arrogance in claiming to ‘know’ history by a simple arithmetic sum. Capitalism does not claim to know history and in so doing allows the space within the cultural consciousness to come up with multiple histories. There are multiple histories, just as there are multiple futures.

—–