OFFENSIVE 15 Quarterly of libertarian and social Offensive (OLS) September 2007,44 pages, 3 euros  On sale by correspondence at the price of 3.5 € (Order check of Spipasso to return to Offensive c/o Thousand Port sides 61 rue Consolat 13.001 Marseilles) and in the very good bookshops (Quilombo, the breach, Publico, Resistances, etc). http://offensive.samizdat.net/
By Catherine ROGNON-ECARNOT SummaryThis article explores the question of the dressing-up and the representation of the body in three books of Monique Wittig: Virgile, not, Guérillères, the Body lesbian. In Virgile, not, female appearance is a humiliating getup, sign of constraint, which erases the body of each individual in the name of the myth of the woman. The lesbians who fled the hell heterosexual, as heroins of Guérillères seek an appearance which gives to see that they are neither of the women nor of the men. But this beyond the sexes unthinkable can take form only in the literature. It takes form in particular in the text most poetic of Monique Wittig, the Body lesbian, which makes steal in glare the traditional representations of the female body and a body in constant change substitutes to him, polysemous, beyond the unit like the binary one. To see the continuation…
Source: By Catherine Russet-red Guillot and SandrineAt the era of new technologies, the artists handle with the envi the body and the face of the man and use the data-processing medium to invent new bodies. The topicality of the subject binds to the interest related to the representation of the body of the artist in the form of virtual portrait and technological hybridization. It is sometimes the artist himself which lends itself to the multiple experiments undertaken on the organics and the artificial one. Keith Cottingham, Orlan, in particular, have as a characteristic to question in a very disconcerting way the various possibilities of hybridization of their own body. One finds thus, in the center of their work, the topics of the double and the metamorphosis. The artists draw at the same time from an ancestral mythical universe (metamorphoses of Ovide, Prométhée, Narcisse etc) and from an imaginary collective generated by the current scientific experiments (biological clones, dreams and bionics). Between myth and reality, the artists delimit an intermediate zone. To see the continuation…
“One of the commonplaces that one harps in certain mediums, it is that from now on the literature will not have any more but to play a secondary part; the future is with the cinema, on television: I do not believe anything of it.” This reflexion of Simone de Beauvoir appears in Any account fait1, volume autobiographical which grants a big part to the cinema and the reading, like with the voyages of the Sartre-Beauvoir couple in the socialist countries. The interrogation is then - already - of topicality: does the triumph of the image program the death of the literature? This question however corresponds, on a mode less naive than that of “this will kill that”, with a true concern. Indeed, the Sixties and seventies see the rise of audio-visual consumption and the individual cinematographic practice. The intellectuals and the writers worry about the political office of propaganda of mass which seems the prerogative of the audio-visual channels and there see a threat against their own efforts of analysis. The democratization of the access to the cinematographic material can to also appear them as a questioning of the authority of the writing like place of the representations and interpretations, and a form of dispute or competition. Beauvoir rightly, certainly: the image will not kill the writing. But it remains striking that the question of the relationship between these two means of expression arises then on an antagonistic mode, and not in terms of reciprocal influence or comprehensive strategy. To see the continuation…
source: http://www.webdeleuze.com/ DELEUZE/CONFéRENCES
“This report of people which lack are not a renouncement of the political cinema, but on the contrary the new base on which it is based, consequently, in the Third world and the minorities. It is necessary that art, particularly the cinematographic art, takes part in this task: not to address themselves to supposed people, already there, but to contribute to the invention of people. At the time when the Master, the colonizer proclaim “it there forever have of people here”, the people which lack are to become, it invents himself, in the shantytowns and the camps, or in the ghettos, new conditions of fight to which a necessarily political art must contribute. The author of cinema is in front of doubly colonized people, from the point of view of the culture; colonized by stories come besides, but also by its own become myths of the impersonal entities to the service of the colonizer. The author should not thus be made the ethnologist of his people, not more than to invent itself a fiction which would be still a private history. It remains with the author the possibility of giving intercessors, i.e. of taking real and nonfictitious characters, but by putting them themselves in state” fictionner “” to caption " “to confabulate”. The author takes a step towards his characters, but the characters take a step towards the author: double to become. Fabulation is not an impersonal myth, but it is not either a personal fiction: it is a word in act, an act of speech by which the character does not cease crossing the border which would separate its private affair from the policy, and produces itself of the collective statements. ” Gilles Deleuze, Image-Time, Editions of Midnight, 1985. |
| ||||||||||||