OF AN OTHER CINEMA
Art and the moving iamge : A critical readers (2007)
Autre Cinema = other cinema를 주장함. Tony Oursler에 대한 부분은 참고 가능.
they show the differences from and similarities to cinema’s devices, which inspire
them or which they approximate.
By both duplicating cinema and differentiating itself from it, the installations thus also make cinema enter into a history that exceeds it. (407)
The throng of installations today is defined mostly along the lines of video art of the somewhat forgotten history of film-installations, that are now beginning to reassert themselves. There installations, and the forces that animate them, may seem to be the effect of the so-called crisis within cinema and to the difficulties of contemporary art, of which installations are probably the most vivid manifestation. But if it is difficult to assimilate these works to the tradition of the plastic arts, the very framework of which they explode, it is no less difficult to take them as belonging to traditional cinema or as a supplement of cinema; it would rather be better to continue to recapture cinema in the historical and formal singularity of its own device. The strange force of these works is thus to open ever more clearly the indefinable expansion of an other cinema, according to which the conditions of an aesthetics of confusion are clarified and amplified.
Tony Oursler furnishes a model for an other cinema, crossing two principles with limitless forces. The first principle is a reinvention of projection, divided and multiplied. Oursler projects faces or scenes that he has filmed or borrowed onto materials with an exaggerated polumorphism. Secondly, within these elaborated stagings, he assembles these bieng, victims of their frantic destiny of images, mixing them into one or several rooms, taking advantage of the oppotunities offered by the architecture of museums, arranging objects or minute decorative elements like a theatrical scene, in order to elaborate, by means of their vatiation, horribly inhabited worlds. He thus invents a kind of cinema, just as metaphysical and social ad fragmented and permanent, between the elements around which one circulates, but in front of which one also pauses, subjected to the anguished throes of a generalised mini-projection. The being who sees all this is no longer a spectator of the sort fashioned by traditional theatre and cinema. But nor do I think that this being is truly the type of flaneur that Dominique Paini has reinvested with Baudelarin affects. There would need to be a real crowd for that, and the street is not the Salon. As random and often uncertain as it is, in the situation of a semi-spectacle inferred by the museum, the work fixates that which one could call its visitor- but there is no right workd with which to grasp this dissolved, fragmented, shaken, intermittent spectator. (408)