A lot of things have been said about the movement itself, but what happen when this movement is trapped into a closed system like a frame.
During the process of shooting a movie, movements occur everywhere, onscreen and offscreen. But, on the exposed celluloid, only what is on the frame will remain moving. So, what happens when a character goes in and out the frame? We know that the movement continues, we can imagine it, but we lost it in the concrete and visual sense.
Is it a division of movements by the limits of the frame? And are the "lost movements" a part of the art work or do they only live through the imagination of the viewer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Deleuze caractérise deux aspects du hors-champ : un sous la forme d'un ensemble plus vaste qui le prolonge et l'autre sous la forme d'un tout qui l'intègre. (L'image-mouvement. p.31)
En fait, le mouvement du cadre et du «hors-cadre» coexistent ensembles. Les mouvements imaginés du hors-champ font partis prenantes du plan artistique. Certes, les limitations de cadrages montrent un mouvement visibles, mais aussi lisibles. Justement ce qui se trouve dans le lisible démontre bien que le mouvement hors-champ est essentiel au plan, au cadre et la séquence. N'en est-il pas de même pour les mouvement «hors-cadre» qui sont continuellement compris dans les ellipses du montage.
I saw a video piece at the Musée d'art contemporain this afternoon by Manon de Pau that does a great job of illustating Deleuze's ideas on the frame, off-screen space, sets, etc. It's a deceptively simple piece, but if you read the part on framing and then check out this piece, it's a blast! And if you move your eyes quickly side to side, you get the added bonus of seeing RGB artefacts.
Post a Comment