Comments on: Grampians March ‘08

By: kittenmask

kittenmask — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:18:04 +0000

- great point… for me even a little speck or the most contained screen can hold boundless possibilities. to observe the dynamic between the gaze and the images in the brain links it up to the vastness of mind.

-the internet is so amazing… i remember at one point i became hyperaware of the alice in wonderlandish nature of the web, the randomness of it all… and it actually rubbed of into my offline life. started to skip sch to explore the city… then after like 2 weeks, the accumulation of sch assignments brought me back into the fascist groove.

-thanks for calling it a mess! screen machine is actually the main blog that links blogs by students that are taking a module in unimelb cinema studies called ‘television and commodity culture’, which is like a rejection of old sch television effects theory and even linear marxist ideological critique for deleuzianish picture. we are now all working on our final essays

By: ipis dei

ipis dei — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:34:26 +0000

I know that old saying about” seeing the forest for the trees” has become a trite cliche. However, I do believe it’s useful for explaining the framing in these photos.

The fixed space of each frame can end up working like an entry point into a rhizome — in which ‘leaves’, ‘trees’, ‘forest’, ‘woodland ecosystem’ and all points “in between” end up forming part of the bigger multitude.

The frames can be an end in and of themselves, or serve as jumping off points for further inquiry. The variety of perspectives breaks down the neat little “forest vs. trees” binary by showing all the different interstitial perspectives. (To say nothing of the interaction with the wildlife that lives there.)

Incidentally, you (probably) don’t know me. I just stumbled, Alice-in-Wonderland-like, into this inter-linked mess of blogs connected to Screen Machine. (As you might guess, I was initially looking up Deleuze and Guattari resources.)

Anyway, I’m skeptical about ideas kismet and ‘grand design’, but I do feel rather, um, “blessed” to find a group of folks with such common interests, all clustered together.

Cheers!

By: kittenmask

kittenmask — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:14:27 +0000

I think u can actually escape the fascistic nature of the frame by zooming ur view into the detail, generating multiple subjectivities and also contemplating the memory of that particular moment of becoming with the current moment of decoding. The frame could also be used to cut out the continuity of a particular image.

By: machinepeople

machinepeople — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:31:04 +0000

Is the frame always fascistic? Can the frame act as a portal opening onto other becomings, leading to the destabilisation of the ordered?

I wonder what onlone photo-sharing would be like if we all had massive monitors, or if we could experience the image in a digital-neural link, without frames…

By: kittenmask

kittenmask — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:23:22 +0000

Actually, the photos were taken prior to that bout of disorientation. Totally forgot that i had a camera with me while i was offpath. While i didnt feel like a controlfreak when taking those photos, i guess the framing process is actually quite a conscious effort in stabilized representation. Thus maybe making the disordered more enjoyable by ordering the disordered. My eyes + camera + wilderness = a photo churning machine that really churns out fascistic photo products?
Actually I sorta wanted to take those photos because I saw lots of repetitions and patterns. Funny thing that they turned out totally different.Disorientating and even looks multilayered. But still safely within a frame

By: machinepeople

machinepeople — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 04:57:20 +0000

Does posting the photographs alter the experience of disorientation when they were taken, making the disored more enjoyable? A trans-temoral mode of screen-narration/subjectivity production?