Special Issue Image [&] Narrative: Imagining the Author: The Development of Particularity (Deadline: June 1st, 2009) | cfp.english.upenn.edu: "pecial Issue Image [&] Narrative: Imagining the Author: The Development of Particularity (Deadline: June 1st, 2009)
full name / name of organization:
Christian Chelebourg / Image [&] Narrative: Online Magazine of the Visual Narrative
contact email:
christian.chelebourg@wanadoo.fr
cfp categories:
cultural_studies_and_historical_approaches
film_and_television
general_announcements
journals_and_collections_of_essays
popular_culture
theory
In his analysis of the history of mathematics, Gaston Bachelard calls for a reversal of perspectives on the complexity of reasoning: “[…] the simple is in fact always simplified: it can only be thought of correctly when appearing to be the product of a process of simplification.” (L’Épistémologie non cartésienne.) Likewise, in literature and in the visual arts, the particularity of authors, what one has come to call their “little music”, what makes them irreducible to others, is not only the fruit of their genius, but also a meticulous construction, the product of a particularising process, constructions based on what Claude Lévi-Strauss designates as signifying structural choices (La Voie des masques). The particular is thus actually particularised. Its elaboration, inherent to the poetics of the subject, is effectuated at the level of the imagination, or as Jean Burgos explains, in a matrix where the division between the unconscious and the conscious has neither value, nor sense. (Pour une poétique de l’imaginaire).
In this process the author appropriates the anthropological image/imagination as his own, to put it in the service of what Clement Rosset calls his idiocy (in the etymological sense of the word, in Le Réel – Traité de l’ idiotie). It is in this way that symbols and myths, which tend to be seen as universals, become deformed, intertwined, reconfigured in order to produce particular idiomyths, turning language into a “strange language” (Proust, Contre Sainte-Beuve), whose idiolectical components take over the usual meanings. This tendency can be observed in all linguistic or graphical codes, in particular in generic codes or cinematographic ones, which are willingly overturned in favour expressing one’s creative imagination.
In the preface to the “Ne Varietur” edition of his complete works, Victor Hugo asserted: “Everyone who writes, writes just one book: that book is themselves.” The singularising work of artists hence clearly participates in the narcissistic construction of their identities. In this way, it becomes important to attend to of all dimensions of the work where the authors present themselves, to all occasions in which they let themselves be heard or in which they affirm their authority. From this point of view, the critical discourse which spreads over interviews, letters, essays and which seems to be merely an aside to the fiction, acquires an interest which transcends the simple confrontation of displayed artistic principles and artistic practices. These findings can unlock the articulation of image in writing (literary, filmic, graphic), revealing the intimate stakes and profound intentions that mould it.
This issue of Image [&] Narrative will illustrate some of the procedures in which authors in literature, painting, cinema and graphic novels build their particularity and construe a personal image. We encourage contributions which offer a theoretical in-depth investigation of the phenomenon or which confront the visual dimensions of the artwork.
The issue is due for July 2009.
See: http://www.imageandnarrative.be/"
Welcome
I think Sociology is a lot like how the writer and director of The Incredibles describes cartoons:
In sociology, we often call this the "definition of the situation". It could be extended perhaps to also capture the spirit of what Mills called the "Sociological Imagination". No matter what moniker we give it, it is with this "essence" that I believe sociologists must concern themselves, not as rigid actuaries or impartial "scientists", but rather to approach their task much like the artist--with expression, grace, humility, as well as a good dose of criticism.
When an artist visualizes a painting they are working on, they have in their minds-eye an image of how it will look. Even when the "reality" of what they are actually looking at may simply be a block of stone or a blank canvas and table full of paints to mix. They can shape the creative process, but they do not control it completely. What shape their work will finally achieve is largely due to how they urge their clay, stone, paint or musical notation to find its expression in the face of significant constraints, i.e., time, temperature, temper and even a little bit of luck. Their final product may not look "identical" to what they had in mind, but their ability to "bump it up" can have breathtaking results. Take Michelangelo's masterpiece "Il Davido". Considered virtually perfect by many in the art world, the marble from which this sublime form was born was was rejected as flawed by others:
The gallery that houses this masterpiece is entered through a good sized hallway lined on both sides with the guardians of David--a group of unfinished works called "The Captives", aptly named because they look like bodies frozen in the cold hard marble yearning to break out. Michelangelo abandoned them because they were too far from his vision. However, when I visited the museum, I was really taken by these figures--I could see on the one hand how they were not "perfect", but there was something quite spectacular in their imperfection. It all boiled down to a matter of interpretation and vision.
Sociologists face the same dilemma. I think we have a great chance to work with diverse communities to address important social problems. We must remain aware, however, that our goal is not to "reproduce reality" or impose solutions on communities that are external and coercive of their needs. Our job is to use all of the tools in our kit to "bump it up" and encourage individuals to appreciate the beauty of community involvement and the satisfaction of (cultural) self-determination.
The reason to do animation is caricature. Good caricature picks out the essense of the statement and removes everything else. It's not simply about reproducing reality; It's about bumping it up.Good research and teaching by sociologists should likewise attempt to find the essence of a statement and remove everything else. Of course I am not naive enough to think that "essence"="TRUTH", or that all of the external forces and pressures individuals confront, especially in marginalized communities, can somehow be magically removed or held constant. I consider what Bird calls essence more a reflection of the process of sense making in which people engage everyday in order to bring some modicum of rationality to a seemingly hyper-irrational set of social contexts and interactions.
In sociology, we often call this the "definition of the situation". It could be extended perhaps to also capture the spirit of what Mills called the "Sociological Imagination". No matter what moniker we give it, it is with this "essence" that I believe sociologists must concern themselves, not as rigid actuaries or impartial "scientists", but rather to approach their task much like the artist--with expression, grace, humility, as well as a good dose of criticism.
When an artist visualizes a painting they are working on, they have in their minds-eye an image of how it will look. Even when the "reality" of what they are actually looking at may simply be a block of stone or a blank canvas and table full of paints to mix. They can shape the creative process, but they do not control it completely. What shape their work will finally achieve is largely due to how they urge their clay, stone, paint or musical notation to find its expression in the face of significant constraints, i.e., time, temperature, temper and even a little bit of luck. Their final product may not look "identical" to what they had in mind, but their ability to "bump it up" can have breathtaking results. Take Michelangelo's masterpiece "Il Davido". Considered virtually perfect by many in the art world, the marble from which this sublime form was born was was rejected as flawed by others:
Michelangelo took a rejected piece of marble that had numerous veins running through it and carved it into this Goliath-sized sculpture that was originally commissioned by Opera del Duomo
Michelangelo was young when he completed The David, yet you can see his talent and genius in this sculpture. He was 25 years old when he began the statue in 1501. No other sculptor wanted this piece of marble because it could be prone to shatter, but Michelangelo created a masterpiece with it...
The gallery that houses this masterpiece is entered through a good sized hallway lined on both sides with the guardians of David--a group of unfinished works called "The Captives", aptly named because they look like bodies frozen in the cold hard marble yearning to break out. Michelangelo abandoned them because they were too far from his vision. However, when I visited the museum, I was really taken by these figures--I could see on the one hand how they were not "perfect", but there was something quite spectacular in their imperfection. It all boiled down to a matter of interpretation and vision.
Sociologists face the same dilemma. I think we have a great chance to work with diverse communities to address important social problems. We must remain aware, however, that our goal is not to "reproduce reality" or impose solutions on communities that are external and coercive of their needs. Our job is to use all of the tools in our kit to "bump it up" and encourage individuals to appreciate the beauty of community involvement and the satisfaction of (cultural) self-determination.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment