(see previous post)
Of the impossibility in removing oneself (their spirit, politics, sense-of-self, biography) from their creation and the degree in which that agent is thus aware of said impossibility.
In theory, to abstract from reality the appearance/knowledge of oneself (which could be tainted, affected, biased, confused or illusory) and by directly inserting it or indirectly having inserted within, for example, IT's film, THAT awareness becomes far less self-knowing (albeit less cowardly because in effect one becomes a representation, which is a dangerous state) and not actually a subversive act of counter-control.
The intention is revealed to a variety of audiences who, conscious of some otherworldly motivation beyond the film, become simultaneously thrust into a power position and ignored. The insertion may be comical or self-reflexive to the medium within which they've encased themselves (e.g. having a camera revealed through a mirror), but the result is the same. Even if it was a continuity error, the audience becomes more aware of the agents shortcomings than they themselves are. Contemporary Art has been said to exploit this by completely disregarding, and at times excluding, the audience altogether. But what remains, still, is performance. Otherwise it'd be wholly private.
Had they simply remained resonant, for example, in lyrics or as characters within novels or as dead, that awareness (of the impossibility of removing oneself from their creation) - providing they do not tag or sign-in as "author" (Pseudonyms do not count because they are essentially the same thing and eventually revealed) - becomes much heavier with self-awareness and confidence and in turn, very much subversive to the act of control, having no cause for it. Subversive because they would then exist only as Ambiguous, affecting the audience in ways they could never explain.
Note: There should be no negativity or psitivity here.
No comments:
Post a Comment