From: Bruce Checefsky (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Jun 29 2009 - 14:47:06 PDT
I think Jeanne makes a good point. Cornell 'assembled' his films from other films including his own. Essentially a collagist, Cornell's thought process shares Eisenstein's concept for film as you point out.
BRUCE CHECEFSKY | Director, Reinberger Galleries
Voice: 216-421-7407 | email suppressed
The Cleveland Institute of Art | 11141 East Boulevard, Cleveland, OH 44106
From: Experimental Film Discussion List [email suppressed]
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 5:34 PM
To: email suppressed
Subject: Re: collage film history
As I was typing before this contraption sent the email by itself,
Even if there are clear distinctions between collage/montage/assemblage etc. they all obviously belong to the same "breed". I don't see collage as a mere technique, but as a method that contemplates the simultaneity of phenomena in heterogeneous compositions. Editing or montage shares much with this, although as Youngblood clarified, time in cinema is lineal. I would mention here the Cut-Ups too (life is a cut-up, according to Burroughs).
Also, Eisenstein saw montage as an intellectual process of thought by no means restricted to the cinema, but an everyday phenomenon found when we have to deal with the juxtaposition of facts, objects, etc.: “the form of montage is a restoration of the laws of the processes of thought, which in turn restores moving reality in process of unrolling”.
By the way, Dziga Vertov also made some single frame collages, if we take juxtaposition of moving-images as such, in The Man with the Movie Camera.
2009/6/29 Esperanza Collado <email suppressed>>
2009/6/29 Jeanne LIOTTA <email suppressed>>
strictly speaking 'collage' means to paste or glue, a 2-d activity that refers to construction methods and materials. We often use the word connotatively, but if we are to make clear any differences between collage, assemblage, and montage and their relations to artistic practice it seems wise to proceed from strict definations. For what its worth, Joseph Cornell often worked in 2D collage and refered to his 1939 work on film 'Rose Hobart' as "a Film-collage of Rose Hobart" at one of its earliest public screenings. Not because it was *collage-like*, but because it was in fact a collage, an assortment of 2D strips of material constructed into a whole using a gluing agent.
Or does that make every film a collage?
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>>.
-- -----------------Esperanza Collado -- -----------------Esperanza Collado __________________________________________________________________ For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>. __________________________________________________________________ For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.