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