http://con.sagepub.com

Technologies

Research into New Media

International Journal of

Convergence: The

DOI: 10.1177/135485650200800404

2002; 8; 29

Convergence

Petr Szczepanik

Intermediality and (Inter)media Reflexivity in Contemporary Cinema

http://con.sagepub.com

The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:

Media Technologies

Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New

Additional services and information for

http://con.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Email Alerts:

http://con.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Permissions:

© 2002 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

by Michal Pabis on February 27, 2007

http://con.sagepub.com

Downloaded from

Intermediality

and

(Inter)media

Reflexivity

in

Contemporary

Cinema

Petr

Szczepanik

Intermedia

reflexivity

is

a

strategy

of

visualising

structural

differences

between

distinct media

in

hybrid

forms of

images.

Reflexivity

constitutes

a

fundamental feature of all kinds of

intermediality.

Intermedia

reflexivity

can

operate

both

on

the

representational

level of the

image

and

on

the

level of the

diegesis (eg

the

represented

fiction world of the media

text).

The former

approach

characterises

experimental

works such

as

Godard’s

or

Greenaway’s,

whereas the latter mode

prevails

in

fantastic

cinema

that

uses

digital special

effects.

In

what

follows, I argue

that

reflexivity

structures

the

interrelationship

between

different media

through

the

creation

of

hybrid,

intermedia

forms.

Intermedia

As

one

media form takes

over

and

transforms the structural

components

reflexivity

as

of

another,

the

hidden

or

automatised structural

components

of both

constitutive media

become

defamiliarised.

Thus,

a

new

hybrid

form

emerges

that

condition of reflects the structural features of each

colliding

media.’

On

the level of

intermediality

reception,

the

converging

media lose their

transparency

toward the

represented

fictional world.

As

a

result,

the

viewer’s

attention

turns to

the structural

components

of

specific technologies

of

seeing

as

such.

For

example,

Godard’s

Histoire fsJ

du

einéma

(France-Suisse, 1 ~$9-1 ~9$)

does

not

offer

a

direct look

onto

the

diegetic

worlds

through

the

representational

level.

Instead,

we

reflect

on

the surface of

a

dialogue

between

cinema

and video that reveals structural

features of both

media.

Thus,

reflexivity

emerges

as

the

most

reliable

criterion

for

distinguishing

intermediality

based

on a

variety

of different modes

including

conceptual

fusion

(from

other kinds of

media),

transposition,

juxtaposition

or

combination

(as

in

transmedial

relations,

multimedia

and

mixed

media).~

2

An

essential feature of

any

form

of

intermediality,

the

concept

of

reflexivity

calls

for

a

more

detailed definition. Intermedia

reflexivity

describes the

reflection of

material,

structural

and

pragmatic

features of

one

medium

merging

into

another.

At

the

same

time, this

irruption

of

different media elements makes

visible,

and

simultaneously

defamiliarises,

the hidden mechanisms

of the

underlying

medium

(such

as

photograms

and

intervals

revealed

by

’video-deconstruction’ of

cinema in

lci

et

oilleurs

[jean-Luc

Godard,

France-Suisse,

1974]).

In

the

case

of visual

media,

reflexivity

manifests itself

in

the

hybrid

image,

a

© 2002 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

by Michal Pabis on February 27, 2007

http://con.sagepub.com

Downloaded from

30

mixed

type

of media

image

that

stems

from the

collision,

exchange

and

transformation of different media that

are

connected

in

ways

that

I

call

intermedia.3lntermedia

reflexivity

thus

represents

a

process

of mutual

reflecting

and

self-reflecting

of

two

or

more

media

forms,

correlated

within

one

single

image

or

the

diegesis.

Media

Reflexivity

denotes

an

operation

of

’bending

back

on’. In

the

context

of

self-reflexivity psychology

and

philosophy,

reflexivity implies

the ’mind’s

capacity

of

being

both the

subject

and the

object

to

itself,

within the

cognitive

process’.~

It

also

represents

the

key

factor of

an

aesthetic

experience

based

on

disinterestedness and

distance. Robert

Stam

defined

reflexivity

’as

the

process

by

which

texts,

both

literary

and

filmic,

foreground

their

own

production,

their

authorship,

their intertextual

influences,

their

reception,

or

their

enunciation’.’ For

instance,

in

a common

film

experience

we see

the

film,

but

generally

we

do

not

perceive

the

architecture of the

surrounding

movie

theatre.

Similarly,

we

remain

unaware

of the

projecting

light,

the

process

of

creating

continual

movement out

of

static

frames,

and

so on.

Therefore,

film

theory

has

concluded that the

apparatus’

remains

hidden

from the

spectator,

while

also

acknowledging

those

films that

explicitly

deal with

reflexivity

and

shed much

new

’light’

on

it.

Christian

Metz,

a

representative

of the

theory

of

enunciation,’

argues

that

films,

which

try

to

reflect

on

the

apparatus

(like

Truffaut’s

La

Nuit

américaine,

France,

1973),

merely

succeed

in

exposing

decontextualised

parts

of the

apparatus.

When

we

see a camera

or

a

projector

in

a

film,

they

are

nothing

but

diegetic objects,

not

the

same

camera,

or

the

projector,

which

constitute

the film

we

are

just

experiencing.

Attempting

to

reveal the actual

enunciation

and

to

analyse

the actual

apparatus,

the film has

to

present

its

processes

directly

in

the

image

(simultaneous

presentation

of

diegetic

illusion

and

the

way

it is

being

produced).

Alternatively,

this

process may

occur

;

metaphorically,

in

the

diegesis, through

the

image

of another

spectacle,

!

or

by

a

symbolic linkage

of the

diegesis

with

apparatus.8

Joachim

Paech

proposes

that

we can never see

the

medium

itself,

in its

actual

presence.

Representing

a

key

position

in

the

German

media

debate,

Paech

and his

theory

of

intermediality

depart

from Niklas

Luhmann’s

systems-theory.

The

medium,

Paech

argues,

always

remains

hidden

beyond

form,

while the medium

simultaneously

manifests the

underlying

condition

to

observe

form,

resulting

in

a

difference between

medium and

form.

According

to

Paech,

’distinction between medium

and form

designates

no

(physical,

mental,

etc)

essentialities

at

all,

but,

rather,

different

magnitudes

of the

junction

of elements

which,

on

the

part

of form

are

thought

to

be denser than

on

the

part

of the

medium,

which thus

provides

the

(conditions

for) possibilities

of

creating

form’.9

Both

medium and form

are

inseparable

entities;

one

cannot

exist

© 2002 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

by Michal Pabis on February 27, 2007

http://con.sagepub.com

Downloaded from

31

without

the other. We

cannot

see

the

apparatus

of

cinema

as a

visible

object,

except

for

its

manifestations - that is, the film.

Regarding intermediality

and

self-reflexivity,

each medium

can

assume

a

form

in

another

medium,

and

conversely,

’every

form

can

become the

medium

of

a new

development

of form’. 10

Therefore,

as

Paech

quotes

Luhmann,

’distinction between medium and form

is

itself

a

form - form

with

two

sides

that

contains

itself

on

the

one

side,

the form side’.&dquo;

In

short,

where

medium

is

reflected

in

form,

it

becomes the

component

of

a new

form,

whereas the

underlying

form

turns

into

medium

in

the

new,

reflexive,

or

intermedia form. This reflexive

process

has

been described

as

re-entry

and

re-transcription

of

medium

as

form and

it

also outlines

the

symbolic

repetition

of the

apparatus

in

film. When medium

is

metaphorically figured

in

film

so

that the

difference between medium

and form

occurs

on

the level of

representation

or

the

diegesis,

the

position

of the

spectator

within the

apparatus

is

also

reflected

metaphorically

in

film.

Accordingly,

self-reflection of medium

goes

hand

in

hand with

self-observation

of the

viewer.

Image

(Inter)media

reflexivity

occurs on

two

levels:

at

the

representational

level

laboratories:

concerning

the

image

and

in

the

diegesis.

Hence,

we

need

to

intermedia

distinguish

between the

figuration

of formal

or

material features of

reflexivity

and different media within the

image

itself,

on

the

one

hand,

and between

image-surface

the

figuration

of different media

at

the level

of the

diegesis,

on

the

other. 12 The

first

case

typically

occurs

in

the

experimental

cinema

and

video

of

directors such

as

Godard

or

Vasulka,

whereas the latter

case

is

commonly

observed

in

contemporary

horror and sci-fi

’cinema

of

special

effects’. Of

course,

both

concepts

also

arise

in

hybrid

forms

as

well. Constituted

by

a

transformation of

pixels

at

the

surface of the

image,

the

digital morph

of

a

figure

embodies the

most

striking

example

of this

diegetic

tool

in

film.

Intermedia

at

the

level of

image-surface

generates

new

forms

(and

new

experiences)

of

images emerging

from virtual

spaces

between

traditional media and forms: between

photography,

film

(photogram),

video and

computer

image.

This

’between’,

or

’l’entre-images’

as

called

by Raymond

Bellour, 13

manifests itself

in

different

ways:

as a

place

of

passages

between immobile and

moving images,

as an area

between

analogy

and

simulation,

as

a

passing

of

a

viewer

in

front of different

images,

as a

passing

of

images

in

front of

a

viewer, and

finally,

as a

shift

in

the

nature

of the

image

itself. 14

Yvonne

Spielmann,

in

her

analysis

of

films

by

Greenaway,

Marker and

others,

describes the aesthetic

strategies

of intermedia

reflexivity

at

the

level of the

image

itself. The

hybrid

form of

intermedia,

she

argues,

accomplishes multiple

tasks:

it

correlates

the structural

components

specific

to

interrelated

forms and

media,

it

reveals elements of their

© 2002 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

by Michal Pabis on February 27, 2007

http://con.sagepub.com

Downloaded from

32

coherence

or

incoherence,

and

it

thus

expresses

their

difference.

Spielmann’s

close

analysis

of

Prospero’s

Books

(Peter Greenaway,

UK,

1991)

shows that

the intermedia form of

image

stems

from the

correlation of interval and visual cluster. Interval

is

a

temporal

term

fundamental

for film

image

(and generally,

all

analogue images).

It

acts

as an

agent

that

constitutes

temporality

of

the

image

through

establishing

and

effacing

the

constitutive

differences

between

consecutive

individual

frames and shots. Visual cluster

is

a

spatial

term

applicable

to

the electronic

image

for

it

describes the

merging

of

different,

simultaneous

image

layers

into

a

single

image

unit, which

produces

’spatial

density through

coherence and fusion’ .15

Greenaway’s

reflexive device of

’frames within frames’ visualises simultaneous

image

layers

as

heterogeneous

and reveals their

construction

principle

of

b

clusters.

At

the

same

time, the interval

is

electronically

re-worked

or re-

t

modelled

in

spatial

terms

by

the cluster

through

the

inserting

of

L

heterogeneous

images

into

other

images

(moving

image

into

still

image).

This

process,

in

turn,

results

in

self-reflection

of

interval,

too.

Spielmann

calls

such

processes

of

correlation,

collision and

transformation of different

media,

which

result

in

mixed form

of

image,

a

’hyperdynamic

image

position’. Exposing

inherent

structural features

that

are

usually

hidden

or

have become automatised

in

previous

mono-

media

forms,

the

hyperdynamic

image position

reveals differences and

l

similarities between media. ’Self-reflection

is

a

medium

specific

strategy

~

that

is

used

to

link formal

aspects

of different visual

media,

such

as

painting,

film and electronic media’. 16

The

work of Jean-Luc Godard

proves

particularly

relevant

for

the

discussion of intermedia

reflexivity.

Since

the

1970s,

Godard has

deconstructed

images

and sounds of film and television

by

’video-

scalpel’

in

order

to

form

a

’writing’

in

images

based

on

video

mixing.

Employing

a

variety

of

techniques - including

those of electronic

collage,

wipe,

keying,

superimposition,

incrustation,

slowing

down

or

accelerating

image

speed,

and video-vibrations - Godard’s work

exposes

structural and

pragmatic

features of video

image

and

its

apparatus.&dquo;

As

a

result,

Godard drives the

possibilities

of

image

and

sound

to

perceptual

and technical limits.

As

Philippe

Dubois has

noted,

Godard makes

use

of video

in

order

to

rethink what

cinema is

able

to

achieve,

and

we,

the

viewer

are

participating

in

a

new

hybrid

and

essay form of

thinking

in

images

and

sounds.&dquo;

Cinema of

new

Following

the discussion of intermedia

at

the

referential level of the

tricks:

figuration

surface

image,

we now

turn to

the

phenomenon

of intermedia

in

the

of media

diegesis.

Figuration

of distinct technical media within film

diegesis

has

technologies

in been

a

key

feature of the

’cinema

of

new

tricks’.

This

genre

heavily

the

diegesis

draws

upon

the

renaissance

of

special

effects

through

digital

technologies

throughout

the last

25 years.

Reflecting

the

ongoing

© 2002 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

by Michal Pabis on February 27, 2007

http://con.sagepub.com

Downloaded from

33

processes

of

technological

innovation, this

cinema

has been

continuously

evolving.

Films

usually allegorise

collisions of different

media

or

technologies

by

narrating

a

conflict between

diegetic

forces.

One

side

of this

opposition

tends

to

feature forces of

magic,

high-speed

transfers,

dematerialisation,

seamless

transformation and

fluent

simulation.

The

other side

frequently

presents

more

traditional forces

of

lasting

differences and limits between

categories,

things

and human

bodies,

of hierarchical distinction between

reality

and

simulation,

of

time

and

space

conformable with the finite human

body.

A

frontier

(hybrid)

figure,

which

can

pass

from

one

side

to

the

other,

usually

complicates

and advances

the

conflict between

both

principles.

For

example,

Neo

(Keanu Reeves),

the

main

character

in

The

Matrix

(Larry

and

Andy

Wachowski,

USA,

1999),

succeeds

in

gradually

training

his

embodied

(’analogue’)

consciousness

to

function with

great

effectiveness

in

the

world of

disembodied and immortal

digital

simulations,

ie

to

adapt

himself

to

digital

laws.

Here

we

can

observe

an

example

of

symbolical

linkage

of the

diegesis

with the

processes

of

apparatus

as

discussed

by

Metz

and Paech.

Thomas Elsaesser and

Vivian

Sobchack

analysed

the

possibilities

of

allegorisation

of media

apparatus

in

the

diegesis.

For

example,

Elsaesser revealed

anticipations

of

stereoscopy

and virtual

reality

in

the

works of

Louis

Lumière.19

Similarly,

Vivian

Sobchack’s

phenomenological

analysis

of

morphing

describes

special

effects

in

contemporary

science

fiction. Sobchack demonstrates how

morphing

within film

diegesis

allegorise

digital technologies

of

imagining

and how the

film

image

itself

is

affected

through

the

morph.

She relies

on

two

prominent

examples -

Terminator 2:

The

Judgement

Day, (James

Cameron,

USA,

1991)

and Dark

City

(Alex

Proyas,

USA,

1998) -

to

allegorise

the

collision of

analogue

and

digital technology through

figurations

of

seamless transformation and

temporal reversibility.

According

to

Sobchack,

the

morphing

could become

an

allegory

reflexive of

its

own

figuration:

In

some

instances, the effects of

digital

morphing

as a

mode of

figuration

are

relatively

transparent ...

one

looks

through

them

while

focused

primarily

on

narrative

elements.

In

the other instances,

however,

morphing’s

transformation

of,

and

challenge

to, the

very

grounds

of

cinematic

indexicality

and

representational

labor

are

foregrounded

to

become

allegorical figures

of this

very

problematic

...

The

morphological ground

of

the

film&dquo;s

cinematic

space

and

time

not

only

is

transformed

at

a

deep

structural

level

by

digital

effects

but also

is

narratively allegorized

and visible

figured. 20

Devices

of

(inter)media reflexivity

occur

in

films that

use

digital ’special

effects’

excessively. They produce

ineffaceable

gaps

and

a

sense

of

’uncanniness’

through

their introduction of

radically

different types of

imagery.

This simulation

fundamentally

differs from the

’ontology’

of the

© 2002 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

by Michal Pabis on February 27, 2007

http://con.sagepub.com

Downloaded from

34

photographic-based

analogue

imagery

because of

its

temporal

reversibility

and endless transformative

quality

to

spread

out

spatially.

Surely,

not

all the films

using

special

effects

can

be called

self-reflexive

or

intermedia. Polish

intermediality

theorist

Andrzej

Gw6zdz

points

to

&dquo;films of

digital

imagery’

that

extend and

imitate

photographic

imagery

and their tricks while

smoothly

inserting

them

into

the fictional

context

of

a

film,

such

as

in

Steven

Spielberg’s

Jurassic Park

(USA,

1993).21

By

contrast,

’films of

new

visibilities’

reflect ’interfaces’ of filmic and

non-

cinematic

images

as

such -

in

entre-images

or

in

the

diegesis.

Gwozdz’s

examples

include works

by

Wenders and

Greenaway

as

well

as

the

science

fiction film The

Lawnmover

Man

(Brett Leonard,

USA/UK,

T 992).

The latter

work

parallels

the evolution of the

image

(through

excessive

use

of

computer

graphics)

to

the evolution

of

a man

and the

emergence

of

a

new

kind of artificial

perception

devoid of material

interface. Transformation of the

image

is

thus

allegorised through

the

transformation

of

diegetic

parsonage.

In

this

case,

the

mentally

deficient

Jobe

Smith evolves

through

multi-sensorial and

interactive

experiences

of

VR

into

a

powerful digital

monster.

Intermedia

reflexivity

in

Godard

or

Greenaway

and that

in

the

’cinema

of

new

tricks’ has revealed

a

host of

differences and similarities. While

the former domain

approaches

intermedia

in

a

modernist

sense,

the

second realm

mostly

strives

to

exploit

and

incorporate

new

media

possibilities

into

the

mainstream.

At

stake

is

the

opposition

between

experiment

and

innovation.22

Experimentation

involves

disinterested,

formal

games

that reveal

new,

divergent, unpredictable

and

non-

productive possibilities

of

technology

without

aiming

to

exploit

them

commercially.

By

contrast,

innovation

seeks

to

enhance technical

efficiency through

the

repetition

and fetishisation of

special

effects.

Morphing

monsters

that

diegetically

allegorise morphing

itself thus

turn

into

metaphors

of

cinema’s

anxiety

and

its

will

to

survive in

the

new

environment

of

digital speed

and

transformations

(which

remain

unspeakable

from the

perspective

of monomedia

film).

Both the

great

experimenters

and the

’cinema

of

new

tricks’

present

figural

strategies

that

help

film advance

its

evolution

vis-6-vis

emerging

digital

technologies.

But

while

Godard has

experimented

to

re-invent

cinema

by

means

of

a

new

thinking

and

writing

in

images,

the

morph

as

the

diegetic

tool

serves

to

revitalise established

styles

of

mainstream

cinema.

But

why

do film and

cinema

play

such

major

roles

in

understanding

intermedia

nowadays? According

to

Paech

it

is

because

’a

film

(as

new

medium),

eg, consists

of

25

photographs

(old

medium)

that

run

through

the

projector

in

one

second.

This

makes film

into

the ideal

case

of

an

intermedial

hermaphrodite

and

a

typical

transitional medium between

- photography

(old)

and

digital

representation

on

the

monitor

screen

© 2002 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

by Michal Pabis on February 27, 2007

http://con.sagepub.com

Downloaded from

35

(new),

which leads

to

fully

new

relations of

symbolic

and material

intermediality’. 23

While the

intermediality

of

analogue

film

ponders

the

fundamental

heterogeneity

of correlated

media,

intermediality

in

computers

lets

us

encounter

their seamless

incorporation

within the

same

digital

code,

where

any

differences

between media tend

to

fade.

Notes

1

We

can

compare

this transformation -

caused

by

the

invading

alien

element -

to

the

effect of illness

on

the

mind of

a

sick

person. On

the

one

hand,

one

becomes

conscious

of

its

force

and

rhythm,

and,

on

the other

hand,

one

is

aware

of

one’s

transformed

body

and

physical

processes,

to

which

a

healthy

person

does

not

pay

attention

(such

as

breathing

or

digestion).

2 For

a

comparison

of these

media relations

see

Eric

Vos,

’The

Eternal

Network. Mail

Art,

Intermedia

Semiotics,

Interart

Studies’

in

Interart Poetics.

Essays

on

the Interrelations of

the

Arts

and

Media,

eds.

Ulla-Britta

Lagerroth,

Hans

Lund,

Erik

Hedling

(Amsterdam

and

Atlanta,

GA:

Rodopi,

1997),

pp.

325-336.

3 For

a

detailed

description

of

different

modes

of

media

merging

see

Yvonne

Spielmann,

’Intermedia and the

Organization

of

the

Image:

Some

Reflections

on

Film, Electronic,

and

Digital

Media’,

Iris:

A Journal

of

Theory

on

Image

and

Sound,

no.

25

(1998),

pp.

67-68.

4

Robert

Stam,

Reflexivity

in

Film and

Literature:

From Don

Quijote

to

Jean-Luc

Godard

(Ann

Arbor:

University

of

Michigan

Press,

1992),

pp.

xiii.

5

ibid.

6

The

’cinematic

apparatus’

encompasses

the basic

cinematographic

apparatus

(the

set

of

operations

and conditions

of film

production)

and

the

dispositif (a spatial configuration

of film

projection

and

perception).

7

See Christian

Metz,

L’énonciation

impersonnelle

ou

le

site

du

film

(Paris:

Klincksieck, 1991).

Enunciation

theory

examines

the discursive markers

which

inscribe

in

a

film

(’énoncé’)

the

traces

of

the

act

of

uttering

itself

(’énonciation’).

8

Metz

described

examples

for

each

type:

A

Star Is Born

(George

Cukor,

USA,

1954),

where

in

one scene

the

image

is

compositionally

divided

into

two

parts,

one

showing

the

diegetic

illusion

of

a

train

and

passengers,

the

other

its

production by special

effects.

Paris,

Texas

(Wim

Wenders,

Germany/France,

1984)

includes

the

metaphoric

evocation

of the

cinematic

apparatus

in

the

scene

of

a

peep

show.

Persona

(Ingmar Bergman,

Sweden,

1966)

illustrates the

symbolic linkage

between the

diegesis

and

apparatus

by articulating

the

relationship

between

the

two

characters

in

quasi-cinematic

terms

such

as

identification,

projection

etc.

9

Joachim

Paech,

’Artwork -

Text -

Medium.

Steps

en

Route

to

Intermediality’.

ESF

’Changing

Media

in

Changing

Europe’,

Paris 26-28

May

2000.

http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/Philo/LitWiss/MedienWiss/Texte/

interm.html

(4 July

2002).

10

Ibid.

11

Ibid.

Paech

adapted

Luhmann’s

Die Kunst

der Gesellschaft

(Frankfurt:

Suhrkamp,

1995),

pp. 165-214.

12 For

a

discussion

of rhetoric

figuration

on

these

two

levels

see

Dudley

Andrew,

’Figuration’

in

Concepts

in

Film

Theory

(New York;

Oxford:

Oxford

University

Press,

1984),

pp. 157-171.

13

Concepts

elaborated

by Raymond

Bellour.

See

L’Entre-images: Photo,

© 2002 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

by Michal Pabis on February 27, 2007

http://con.sagepub.com

Downloaded from

36

Cinéma,

Vidéo

(Paris:

La

Différence,

1990),

pp.

10-13.

14

See

Raymond

Bellour,

’The Double Helix’

in

Electronic Culture.

Technology

and Visual

Representation,

ed.

Timothy

Druckrey

(New

York:

Aperture,

1996), p.

174.

15

Spielmann,

p. 66.

16 Yvonne

Spielmann,

’Intermedia

in

Electronic

Media’, Leonardo, 34,

no.

1

(2001),

p. 60.

17

As

figured

in

Godard’s

work,

video apparatus

is

characterised

by

a more

personal,

immediate,

experimental

and

’tactile’

treating

of the

image’s

’body’

itself,

whereas

video

operates

as

the tool

for

manipulating

the

image

in

real

time,

live.

18

Philippe

Dubois

analysed subsequent

stages of video-film relations

in

Godard’s work.

See

his article

’Video

Thinks

What

Cinema Creates.

Notes

on

Jean-Luc

Godard’s

Work

in

Video

and Television’

in:

Jean-Luc

Godard.

Son-Image

1974-1991,

eds.

Raymond

Bellour, Mary

Lea

Bandy

(New

York:

The

Museum

of Modern

Art,

1992),

pp.

169-186.

19

Thomas

Elsaesser,

’Louis

Lumière -

the

Cinema’s First

Virtualist?’

in

Cinema

Futures:

Cain,

Abel

or

Cable?

The Screen

Arts

in

the

Digital

Age,

eds.

Thomas

Elsaesser,

Kay

Hoffmann

(Amsterdam:

Amsterdam

University

Press,

1998),

pp. 45-62.

20 Vivian

Sobchack,

’At

the

Still Point

of

the

Turning

World.

Meta-Morphing

and

Meta-Stasis’

in

Meta-morphing:

Visual

Transformation

and the

Culture

of

Quick-Change,

ed.

V. Sobchack

(Minneapolis;

London:

University

of

Minnesota

Press,

2000),

p. 137.

21

Andrzej

Gwózdz,

’Sehmaschine Audiovision: Filme

im

Medienwandel’

in

Autoren, Automaten, Audiovisionen,

ed.

Ernest

W.B. Hess-Lüttich

(Wiesbaden:

Westdeutscher

Verlag,

2001),

pp.

135-150.

22 On

the difference between

innovation

and

experiment

in

media

art

see

Dimitris

Eleftheriotis,

’Video

Poetics:

Technology,

Aesthetics and

Politics’,

Screen,

36,

no.

2

(1995),

pp.

100-112.

23

Paech,

op

cit.

© 2002 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.

by Michal Pabis on February 27, 2007

http://con.sagepub.com

Downloaded from