A psychologically unstable reality as represented by narrative techniques, such the PKDick kind, or the larger but similar "rubber reality" which is exemplified by the movies: Vanilla Sky, Jacobs Ladder, The Wizard of Oz, the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. Wherein, "Caligari" is the most-used rubberized ending; waking up its all a dream.
An action movie is not rubber reality, well, generally. Rubber reality is a corruption of reality in that for a moment longer than exists several actions can be covered if time froze, for instance in a action move where the stunt was shot from different angles and the editor goes over the same event from different angles....no rubber reality.
Nor is slow-mo, so a realistic action movie is pretty much linear.
If one indulges in this multiple camera set up but then jumps to another location, that is not rubber reality, just parallel storylines.
However, if the scene is shot from another camera angle yet seen in the cliche action repeat of the same action again and again from another angle, one of those angle the "car" driving down a street is a giraffe.
Yet, that giraffe is not just a single incident in the narrative, it somehow represents a large narrative where the car is a rhino, then a giraffe, then a car is the odd thing out.
Rubber realities always have some obvious breaks in the narrative, skips, leaps, transitions that seem too artificial in space in time.
Suddenly, the character aging twenty years might be a part of realistic narrative, but in rubber reality movies, that character aging twenty years might be due to a flashback.
In one case we know the narrative skips around in linear fashion, say, like Forrest Gump, but in another case the narrative skips and suddenly the audience realizes it was all a flashback...that is the transition to rubber reality, however, its only an instant.
There are realistic action movies. Lets say Italian neo realism is realistic, and yet Bergman's own unreality is more real; it coming from Genre beginning it very division between Fantasy and Reality, wherein, the first division away from Realism is into what I now assert is Psychiatric Horror.
PH is in fact actually aware of reality and being so is important, while in many rubber realities it is not. For instance in Wizard of Oz, there is a moment of anxiety, yet, then fantasies come about and Dorothy has no doubt they are real.
Psychiatric horror is the first step away from reality toward the vast range of other kinds of genre's.
We see the narrative or plot shifts, slightly, and Psychiatric horror a sub-genre of Realism that does not dispense with reality.
Nor it is "sensational", as in always being set in a Psychiatric Hospital.
Vertigo is actually a good example.
The term then impedes or closes, limits, filters, or constrain so, that the non Psychiatric Horror film "represents" the subjective imaginings of a character, while on the outside the reality is more of the drama...for instance, reversing Total Recall, wherein, the moment the counselor enters the hallucination and offers a pill to bring the Character back to reality...or the psychiatrist is lying and the pill will kill the Character.
In this case, the Character rejects the pill, and succumbs to the psychotic break...
The parallel story line would be of the people at the office looking in on user who paid for a service and was rendered "gone".
This gone ness is in Strange Days too, a mind blitzed or fried or permanantly damaged, by "an interface", and in Brazil.
Other stories have psychiatric horror...Bartleby the Scrivener.
Many of these are embedded into Drama, but its par for the course inso how much Netflix and Amazon flex and propose and promote differing ways to divide up and present the libraries, afflicted yet emerging out from the old industrial terminology.
Subjectivity. This giving oneself up into a movie, to be comfortably subjective and personal, is a release, well, was a common release over four or five generations before the digital age, when the world itself was treating "you" impersonally...say, for instance, demanding personally unchallenging work you might suppress taking it all personal at one time and just get along.
Or, of course, no air conditioning provided the viewer a desire to go out to the public place where there was one cooling the room.
It used to be a big let loose after work or retirement, but things are well organized by capacity, and people are placated by the new technologies, in ways the empower a new demeanor and Zeitgeist. Sounds hi concept but I cant think of anything more obvious that since the internet its not business as usual.
So that moment to enjoy your authentic subjectivity, ala Kerouac On The Road, well, that is going away.
There is a heap load of making personal empowerment user design. Or, one can see in cross genre proliferation, or in cooking shows gone wild, or social media overall.
So, with that comes a allowance of personality into any old job, as, one is online.
Even washing dishes. I mean, that might be a good show right now, "John, who washes dishes". Of course, John is just washing dishes, meanwhile, not known to the audience, he is working on a dissertation about late nineteenth French Literature.
As that teeters, and we find enough accord with reality where before it was wanting, this is much more so than in the past, and now it is due to our advanced perspective to try and clarify what this means.
Hence new Art.
We fit in, we have authenticity...and regardless of what we do, there is a society into which we are heard and responded.
Intersubjectivity, so rare as to be only a family event, is no longer exclusive to family.
Oh, it wasn't. It was contained in the Bible and Theocracy. There was also a subjectivity exposed, shared, affirmed. Religion still does that, yet, media is now a new practice even further from ritual.
An action movie is not rubber reality, well, generally. Rubber reality is a corruption of reality in that for a moment longer than exists several actions can be covered if time froze, for instance in a action move where the stunt was shot from different angles and the editor goes over the same event from different angles....no rubber reality.
Nor is slow-mo, so a realistic action movie is pretty much linear.
If one indulges in this multiple camera set up but then jumps to another location, that is not rubber reality, just parallel storylines.
However, if the scene is shot from another camera angle yet seen in the cliche action repeat of the same action again and again from another angle, one of those angle the "car" driving down a street is a giraffe.
Yet, that giraffe is not just a single incident in the narrative, it somehow represents a large narrative where the car is a rhino, then a giraffe, then a car is the odd thing out.
Rubber realities always have some obvious breaks in the narrative, skips, leaps, transitions that seem too artificial in space in time.
Suddenly, the character aging twenty years might be a part of realistic narrative, but in rubber reality movies, that character aging twenty years might be due to a flashback.
In one case we know the narrative skips around in linear fashion, say, like Forrest Gump, but in another case the narrative skips and suddenly the audience realizes it was all a flashback...that is the transition to rubber reality, however, its only an instant.
There are realistic action movies. Lets say Italian neo realism is realistic, and yet Bergman's own unreality is more real; it coming from Genre beginning it very division between Fantasy and Reality, wherein, the first division away from Realism is into what I now assert is Psychiatric Horror.
PH is in fact actually aware of reality and being so is important, while in many rubber realities it is not. For instance in Wizard of Oz, there is a moment of anxiety, yet, then fantasies come about and Dorothy has no doubt they are real.
Psychiatric horror is the first step away from reality toward the vast range of other kinds of genre's.
We see the narrative or plot shifts, slightly, and Psychiatric horror a sub-genre of Realism that does not dispense with reality.
Nor it is "sensational", as in always being set in a Psychiatric Hospital.
Vertigo is actually a good example.
The term then impedes or closes, limits, filters, or constrain so, that the non Psychiatric Horror film "represents" the subjective imaginings of a character, while on the outside the reality is more of the drama...for instance, reversing Total Recall, wherein, the moment the counselor enters the hallucination and offers a pill to bring the Character back to reality...or the psychiatrist is lying and the pill will kill the Character.
In this case, the Character rejects the pill, and succumbs to the psychotic break...
The parallel story line would be of the people at the office looking in on user who paid for a service and was rendered "gone".
This gone ness is in Strange Days too, a mind blitzed or fried or permanantly damaged, by "an interface", and in Brazil.
Other stories have psychiatric horror...Bartleby the Scrivener.
Many of these are embedded into Drama, but its par for the course inso how much Netflix and Amazon flex and propose and promote differing ways to divide up and present the libraries, afflicted yet emerging out from the old industrial terminology.
Subjectivity. This giving oneself up into a movie, to be comfortably subjective and personal, is a release, well, was a common release over four or five generations before the digital age, when the world itself was treating "you" impersonally...say, for instance, demanding personally unchallenging work you might suppress taking it all personal at one time and just get along.
Or, of course, no air conditioning provided the viewer a desire to go out to the public place where there was one cooling the room.
It used to be a big let loose after work or retirement, but things are well organized by capacity, and people are placated by the new technologies, in ways the empower a new demeanor and Zeitgeist. Sounds hi concept but I cant think of anything more obvious that since the internet its not business as usual.
So that moment to enjoy your authentic subjectivity, ala Kerouac On The Road, well, that is going away.
There is a heap load of making personal empowerment user design. Or, one can see in cross genre proliferation, or in cooking shows gone wild, or social media overall.
So, with that comes a allowance of personality into any old job, as, one is online.
Even washing dishes. I mean, that might be a good show right now, "John, who washes dishes". Of course, John is just washing dishes, meanwhile, not known to the audience, he is working on a dissertation about late nineteenth French Literature.
As that teeters, and we find enough accord with reality where before it was wanting, this is much more so than in the past, and now it is due to our advanced perspective to try and clarify what this means.
Hence new Art.
We fit in, we have authenticity...and regardless of what we do, there is a society into which we are heard and responded.
Intersubjectivity, so rare as to be only a family event, is no longer exclusive to family.
Oh, it wasn't. It was contained in the Bible and Theocracy. There was also a subjectivity exposed, shared, affirmed. Religion still does that, yet, media is now a new practice even further from ritual.
Nor does it mean not-having-to-take-things-too-personal. Wait...I think that means "things can be taken more 'personally'", but in a bland general way, meh, without it being an outburst of protestation, rebellion, critique or recognition of "authenticity".
Its a 90's 'we are all here' meme, evolving out 60 and 70's belonging factories.
Furthermore is ever this shift in what Art History used to be. To Baby Boomers: a more fantasy genre breaks away from an earlier reading public of simpler genre, to mark the realists as classicists for they oppose the new genre, which being romantic, has accepted a new subjectivity.
Thats English Literature 101...the new audience of the romantic genre. Oh, they were still reading poetry as competing with novel. Paintings early demise visible in the new photography.
That is a narrative of development: the Impressionists took over from the academy, while a counter movement in dark subjective fantasies, a sub genre of romanticism, formed a less popular, less lucrative market. The Impressionist sold in great emerging markets of triumphant colonial Imperialist, as the innovation in light and brush stroke that became the signature...a technique as style as pictorial innovation.
None of that really is a narrative anymore. Its all here right now, without having to organize it into a time line. Modernism seem to break down catagory, and it might have been predicting the dissolution of catagorization...no longer is there Drama and Comedy, for instance.
One can really take the entire thing, from dawn until now, into a panorama that slowly compresses, say, one extra arc minute a decade (half a generation) as we add the present, and well, one can use any of this panorama, right now.
One can order up any style. Fonts might be a good cant, but only if the person at the keyboard knows art history, so as to identify it.
Central to the thinking I am seeking to lay down here over a series of essays or chapters is that wherein experts know, the selection can also be random.
Providing it entertainment where there is no need for education, but merely identities affirmed, distracted, personalized...as long as the big bad chaos was somehow humanized in emotion. The actual underpinnings in millenia of distilled scholarship is irrelevant.
In fact, as this kind of new transparency, or increase in the resolution of the scholar/jounalists at hand, we can close some of the gaps. Gaps being where for instance, we had to wonder about this person based on observation...perhaps a good example is how detectives worked before forensics.
For example, one Historian was dedicated to Rennaissance, and taught all that contra-posto, perspective, etc. While another class is taught by another Historian specialized in Modern Abstract...say, beginning with Mondrian, or Turner or something.
No longer is that line drawn so resolutely, the boundaries are diminishing, and in the compression...in the immediate presentation of all knowledge some of these barriers and gaps between will go away.
Yet, some will remain.
So, I must say some of this work, this multiple genre, proliferation of visualization and dilating of narrative.
Focusing on narrowing or reconfiguration of smaller categories into larger categories, wherein, there are more larger categories, and even then, the subjects have melded together to form more space where a finer grain to categorization can be experience and compressed...for instance, going from horror (Psycho) to sci fi (Forbidden Planet) to action (The Great Escape), as seperate movies, instead now to "horror-sci fi-action" (Aliens), where abounds many new stories, same narratives, varying spectacles and greater manipulation of emotional responses insofar as fear, excitement and...lets just call scifi, generally, wonder.
While the movie genre itself compresses into a single website, or two, for sourcing.
So film studies are more colloqualls, even less seminars, and certainly not a class or a subject warranting a degree in study.
One thinks more correspondences between things, even in the sciences this had become the norm. Psychochemistry. No, seriously, Astrochemistry, or biophysics. When in fact the study truly is now Astrobiochemicalphysics.
So to are this essays about the predicted super genre's, or genre mutation into more capable digital categories, such as Realism vs. Psychiatric Horror. So to the sciences so to the Humanities. Or what had been delegated by the industrialist as Entertainment vs. Art...because it did make a difference back then.
But that is an old argument from the Fifties, creating low brow and high brow, underground, counter-culture, alternative...genre's which dont really exist anymore.
First of all, to continue clarifying this future art, lets take Realism, in the case of totally redefining, starting with its first sub-genre.
Certainly, to be more inclusive and to also include a "shift in reality" that is the mark of a transition of a industrial paper society into electronic screen society. Realism now means something more than the literary genre used in the late nineteenth century.
Furthermore, Horror is too widely subjective.
As a scene of drama, the external world is inadequate and so is Realism...the external world, the social public world in which people cannot escape.
We've set aside the old Tribal or Historical "religions".
I put "religion" into parenthesis as its really a good way of saying what used to be religion is no longer that functional.
For what it used to do, in a nutshell as well crafted as a set of literary devices go, is provide Cosmology.
Religion does not do that anymore. Well, to some it does, but their wrong.
So, even then the idea of a Personal Being plastered over reality...up into the sky eventually because that was the least tangible...most sandy part of what is known. Differing religion competed and I have a feeling over time the superstitions associated with whatever earthly reality paled before comparison, until, the only thing left to attribute to a personal will beyond man was in the sky.
The Theological argument is valid. Religion does root civilization. Other people can argue uprooting the old cosmology however, we dont want to throw out all the books just because, at first guess, there was a lot of error.
But that is a spurious track: cross genres we go, and hence, Psychiatric horror favors the use of the term Realism.
Realism as package in which to store things: photos are real. But there is photo realistic images of dragons. So, they are Psychiatric Horrors.
Indeed, they are!
However, there is Horror into which language has rounded up large amount of material. The reference itself contains a subjective reaction: not everyone will find this or that horror, horrific.
Its a problem in the word definition...but the Industrial way has gelled here, and so we make use of it for Google, sure.
However, in posing Psychiatric Horror, we include many dramas, many Histories, and many other tone of anxiety, depression, psychosis..etc., wherein, with Realism, we would have simulations of local murders, very strict narrative into autobiographies, all based not around words or the "power of print", but instead on visual correspondences, and emotion correspondences.
Genre and visual definitions cross index, in a seemingly arbitrary way.
Yet Audio is, as far as I can see it practical, in this enlargement of context, text, thought, and technique, does have its compression and correspondences, yet, Audio is bound to the visual image, wherein, the visual image is not bound to genre...while audio is bound to the genre. So audio does not detach from the visual and much as genre and the visual detach from each other.
Lets say its like the Alpha Centauri, Beta Centauri, and Centuari C...a three sun system, but one sun as a White Dwarf: audio.
So, audio is more the dwarf insofar as it associations are more strongly bound to the referencing above.
Meanwhile, what that means is the larger categories of Visual and Genre are more or less equally laid across, with in example one intersection, but in actual deployment it is inter-laced, or in Thomas Shippey's describes as intrelacement, a technique in Medieval writing corresponding to the inter-lacing of lines in Celtic and Illuminated Manuscript.
Its kinda what Foucault mentioned, comparing the Chinese ideogram favorably to the Western print, seeking to expose the limitations and perhaps more narrowing thinking encumbered by this...old system. Of Western logo centrism.
For within the ideogram was packed multiple meanings and associations all not really that related to each other.
So, the genre of Psychiatric Horror, what is a sub genre of realism closest to Fantasy Sci fi, Mythological material...without dropping out to oppose Realism.
We are looking not for oppositions so much as categories that cascade down from a basic impulse to define itself in reflection as composed of other notions that can be oppositional, but do not oppose reality.
Psy Horror poses sub-genre's, including the now more obvious, drama of psychosis..or ostensibly rubber-reality narratives...but not always...some of the rubber realities are not explained by "psychosis" narratives. Though some narrative of psychosis, whether expressed in style or exemplified in biography, does not include most "it was all a nightmare" conventions of endings.
This is a way to sub catagorize symbols of psyches: a new way to peruse the infinite library for the viewer, they can follow Psychiatric Horror to frame Drama, like Persona, or the compound genre like Aliens, or the expose's like Shock Corridor. Or, Citizen Kane.
Psychiatric Horror biggest problem as a genre, is that too much of it has Tolkiens correspondences to symbols. Orcs, Monsters, etc. are subjective states that have Horror but we see them not thinking they are pure psychic energies set into a sequence...frequently of doubt of reality.
I mean, really, Dragons? No, they represent some psychology of character that cannot be bound by mere quotidian reality. Yet, if one sees, hears and is affected by Dragons, in a Psy Horror film, that person is an example of someone who has lost reality. Its still Realism.
Punk, is a catagory. I would like to see a catagory of Punk movies, however, this is pretty well transiting to digital reference insofar as "related movies" as a search catagory covers the genre and what it could be, very well.
Repo Man next to Sid and Nancy, next to Decline of Western Civ docs, or, even movies that people who described themselves a Punk back in the day, and who know have evidence of how that self designation was affirmed in different media. Their consuming patterns then presented to other viewers as Punk.
Science Fiction remains a categery but its too cluttered too.
Fantasy now requires a Psy test. Or, it is wanting to live in a atavistic time analgous to the Middle Ages?
Fantasy Horror, Vampires, Werewolves, but not Aliens or Godzilla or Frankenstein...is also under psychiatric horror.
Well, I think the idea is understood.
We could think of purifying all categories and reducing them to Realism vs. Fantasy, yet, there are too many useful categories. What we look for instead is the same as what is being done on Netflix, however, the classification is shoddy, nor is there enough usefully provocative categories as they depend upon old Industrial terms, dramas, comedy, and new 'make it personal' or (variations of 'my list').
I am saying we dispense with borrowing old genre's and making connections by way of 'suggestions' based on examples...the mirror effect is okay, but, the preceding lists are quickly wrong in association.
Instead, the genre's should narrow and focus in...on issues, like Environmental movies...that is a good example of a subject into which movies are dumped.
But reality TV is not a good term. Autobiographical is probably better.
Documentary is an old term as well that is no longer useful. Dividing them by ideology would be useful.
Same with Drama. Same with Action. Same with Comedy. Break them all down into smaller categories.
Comedy should be sub-divided. We are not perusing the shelf at the video store and we are even further away from the Comedy-Drama dichotomy of Classical Greek thought.
No, its a computer and our schemes are nearly infinite.
So, we get the "visually exciting" category, which is what we all know as bullshit...as visually exciting is probably someone else's list.
In Horror, we get such uneven, so many sub genre's...really, the list can be redefined, and sometimes there is doozy's...such as one I remember being "stories based on Campbell's Hero with a thousand faces".
Not that I would be attracted to that genre.
The idea being I the user, would select a horror, then a comedy horror, and this brings up a list. No problem.
However, I want a comedy horror which is a cartoon with rock music (no orchestration).
Or, a bad Hollywood movie. This is an objective catagory, a bad Hollywood movie. Or a biography about Hollywood that is a farce.
Farce and Satire would be extremely useful categories...never used. Nor is that being really handy with the definition for its academic parsing..oh, until now.
Its just defining once by one academic that then that applied!
So, to speak of defining for once and for all, that can include structures of dialogue and of course, some categorical errors, but, by and large I can watch a satire. About World War 2. That is a good selection of movies, though it may be well applied today in some search engine, these errors of say then including All's Quiet on the Western Front, is not really a comedy.
But this problem is ongoing and gets a lot of visual play. Clearly, we see how unstable its all becoming.
Hence, I think a dynamic between Realism (cmon, really showing reality) without breaking the boundary of reason...and with humor within the character interaction, and not violating the fourth wall.
Breaking the fourth wall, why, that would be super reality, or epic theater (which is a stupid terminizing, okay?).
Or Reality TV, now broken into autobiographical reality tv or fly on the wall reality TV, or game reality TV.
Though the character can address the audience, and the character can know the cameras are there, there is some other gig going on, like sports, or games.
A Reality TV that is addressing the audience, like Rick Steves, is Auto-Biography but of a objective factor, while there is auto-biography which is of a subjective factor, wherein, Rick is serving us with a novelty of a Europe we cannot visit, while others are serving us by showing themselves working and their emotional reactions to working, sometimes through the lens.
Which would include most of reality tv but also Forrest Gump, and other narratives as told by a narrator.
Not Citizen Kane, which has a opening and closing bookend narrator(s), but we really dont get to know them, those reporters.
However, that would be a sneaking into many new genrifications or cross index (and new categories to call cross indexing), an error prone inclusion.
Probably this is a temporary error due to low computation (although I am predicting this system for higher computation than today!), wherein, the program cannot tell the difference between audio that is addressing the other in tone being the other on screen or off screen.
Maybe in the future THAT GAP will close.
Apart from an initial experiment, somewhat successful, in machine visual analysis being able to distinguish genre's of painters based on style of brushstroke and "styles" of color, the organization across genre of similar narratives occurs simultaneously, not just due to formal accidents.
Say, the opening scene of Wizard Of OZ just seems to fit with the opening song on Dark Side of the Moon.
That kind of mix, which is accidental, I am seeking to engineer into a program that identifies where this does work...and even has some modifications to shoe horn these formerly disparate media and story setting together.
Again, this accident is cross indexing by a human mind, thinking, "maybe this'll sound right?" but the computer can handle this, I am thinking, so that, in systems of narrative as defined by various authors, one can dial around their ways of systemizing narrative, to make a database wherein, say, all scenes of action that occur 20 minutes into the viewing, wherein, the action is composed of nearly the same sequence of shot reverse shot, close up, spectacle of disaster...cut to the Hero, more action, reverse shot, you know, etc.
Barthes, Popper, Campbell, Bordwell, and other literary theorist have systemizations.
Yet, what is suggested is both somewhere beyond mere timing correspondences (which seem ubiquitous and more so, odd in what is then interchangeable), beyond replacing characters by masking and recomposing animation from another production (mentioned in the previous essay), and then fragile systems thought up by theorists...which fail even as they proliferate in diversity!
Yet they do establish a range or some metrics, these narrative theories.
Their parameters can be related to a visual computer program that reads takes notes on where transition occur. Except, its pacing where it breaks, and then within pacing, these narrative schemes, such as the Hero by Campbell being template for Star Wars, these narrative schemes are ruled first by pacing, which it then ruled by movement and other rhythms, like cutting, actions, and also saturation of elements in a scene. The list is large.
Therein, each shot has associated with it timing, color, tone, fps, genre, spatial position of camera, emotional content, and correspondance in dialogue.
All movies that ever existed can be databased this way.
We see the manipulation, by human hands and editing interfaces, that create machinima, or crank out the same genre...in great conformity and mass.
Its a 90's 'we are all here' meme, evolving out 60 and 70's belonging factories.
Furthermore is ever this shift in what Art History used to be. To Baby Boomers: a more fantasy genre breaks away from an earlier reading public of simpler genre, to mark the realists as classicists for they oppose the new genre, which being romantic, has accepted a new subjectivity.
Thats English Literature 101...the new audience of the romantic genre. Oh, they were still reading poetry as competing with novel. Paintings early demise visible in the new photography.
That is a narrative of development: the Impressionists took over from the academy, while a counter movement in dark subjective fantasies, a sub genre of romanticism, formed a less popular, less lucrative market. The Impressionist sold in great emerging markets of triumphant colonial Imperialist, as the innovation in light and brush stroke that became the signature...a technique as style as pictorial innovation.
None of that really is a narrative anymore. Its all here right now, without having to organize it into a time line. Modernism seem to break down catagory, and it might have been predicting the dissolution of catagorization...no longer is there Drama and Comedy, for instance.
One can really take the entire thing, from dawn until now, into a panorama that slowly compresses, say, one extra arc minute a decade (half a generation) as we add the present, and well, one can use any of this panorama, right now.
One can order up any style. Fonts might be a good cant, but only if the person at the keyboard knows art history, so as to identify it.
Central to the thinking I am seeking to lay down here over a series of essays or chapters is that wherein experts know, the selection can also be random.
Providing it entertainment where there is no need for education, but merely identities affirmed, distracted, personalized...as long as the big bad chaos was somehow humanized in emotion. The actual underpinnings in millenia of distilled scholarship is irrelevant.
In fact, as this kind of new transparency, or increase in the resolution of the scholar/jounalists at hand, we can close some of the gaps. Gaps being where for instance, we had to wonder about this person based on observation...perhaps a good example is how detectives worked before forensics.
For example, one Historian was dedicated to Rennaissance, and taught all that contra-posto, perspective, etc. While another class is taught by another Historian specialized in Modern Abstract...say, beginning with Mondrian, or Turner or something.
No longer is that line drawn so resolutely, the boundaries are diminishing, and in the compression...in the immediate presentation of all knowledge some of these barriers and gaps between will go away.
Yet, some will remain.
So, I must say some of this work, this multiple genre, proliferation of visualization and dilating of narrative.
Focusing on narrowing or reconfiguration of smaller categories into larger categories, wherein, there are more larger categories, and even then, the subjects have melded together to form more space where a finer grain to categorization can be experience and compressed...for instance, going from horror (Psycho) to sci fi (Forbidden Planet) to action (The Great Escape), as seperate movies, instead now to "horror-sci fi-action" (Aliens), where abounds many new stories, same narratives, varying spectacles and greater manipulation of emotional responses insofar as fear, excitement and...lets just call scifi, generally, wonder.
While the movie genre itself compresses into a single website, or two, for sourcing.
So film studies are more colloqualls, even less seminars, and certainly not a class or a subject warranting a degree in study.
One thinks more correspondences between things, even in the sciences this had become the norm. Psychochemistry. No, seriously, Astrochemistry, or biophysics. When in fact the study truly is now Astrobiochemicalphysics.
So to are this essays about the predicted super genre's, or genre mutation into more capable digital categories, such as Realism vs. Psychiatric Horror. So to the sciences so to the Humanities. Or what had been delegated by the industrialist as Entertainment vs. Art...because it did make a difference back then.
But that is an old argument from the Fifties, creating low brow and high brow, underground, counter-culture, alternative...genre's which dont really exist anymore.
First of all, to continue clarifying this future art, lets take Realism, in the case of totally redefining, starting with its first sub-genre.
Certainly, to be more inclusive and to also include a "shift in reality" that is the mark of a transition of a industrial paper society into electronic screen society. Realism now means something more than the literary genre used in the late nineteenth century.
Furthermore, Horror is too widely subjective.
As a scene of drama, the external world is inadequate and so is Realism...the external world, the social public world in which people cannot escape.
We've set aside the old Tribal or Historical "religions".
I put "religion" into parenthesis as its really a good way of saying what used to be religion is no longer that functional.
For what it used to do, in a nutshell as well crafted as a set of literary devices go, is provide Cosmology.
Religion does not do that anymore. Well, to some it does, but their wrong.
So, even then the idea of a Personal Being plastered over reality...up into the sky eventually because that was the least tangible...most sandy part of what is known. Differing religion competed and I have a feeling over time the superstitions associated with whatever earthly reality paled before comparison, until, the only thing left to attribute to a personal will beyond man was in the sky.
The Theological argument is valid. Religion does root civilization. Other people can argue uprooting the old cosmology however, we dont want to throw out all the books just because, at first guess, there was a lot of error.
But that is a spurious track: cross genres we go, and hence, Psychiatric horror favors the use of the term Realism.
Realism as package in which to store things: photos are real. But there is photo realistic images of dragons. So, they are Psychiatric Horrors.
Indeed, they are!
However, there is Horror into which language has rounded up large amount of material. The reference itself contains a subjective reaction: not everyone will find this or that horror, horrific.
Its a problem in the word definition...but the Industrial way has gelled here, and so we make use of it for Google, sure.
However, in posing Psychiatric Horror, we include many dramas, many Histories, and many other tone of anxiety, depression, psychosis..etc., wherein, with Realism, we would have simulations of local murders, very strict narrative into autobiographies, all based not around words or the "power of print", but instead on visual correspondences, and emotion correspondences.
Genre and visual definitions cross index, in a seemingly arbitrary way.
Yet Audio is, as far as I can see it practical, in this enlargement of context, text, thought, and technique, does have its compression and correspondences, yet, Audio is bound to the visual image, wherein, the visual image is not bound to genre...while audio is bound to the genre. So audio does not detach from the visual and much as genre and the visual detach from each other.
Lets say its like the Alpha Centauri, Beta Centauri, and Centuari C...a three sun system, but one sun as a White Dwarf: audio.
So, audio is more the dwarf insofar as it associations are more strongly bound to the referencing above.
Meanwhile, what that means is the larger categories of Visual and Genre are more or less equally laid across, with in example one intersection, but in actual deployment it is inter-laced, or in Thomas Shippey's describes as intrelacement, a technique in Medieval writing corresponding to the inter-lacing of lines in Celtic and Illuminated Manuscript.
Its kinda what Foucault mentioned, comparing the Chinese ideogram favorably to the Western print, seeking to expose the limitations and perhaps more narrowing thinking encumbered by this...old system. Of Western logo centrism.
For within the ideogram was packed multiple meanings and associations all not really that related to each other.
So, the genre of Psychiatric Horror, what is a sub genre of realism closest to Fantasy Sci fi, Mythological material...without dropping out to oppose Realism.
We are looking not for oppositions so much as categories that cascade down from a basic impulse to define itself in reflection as composed of other notions that can be oppositional, but do not oppose reality.
Psy Horror poses sub-genre's, including the now more obvious, drama of psychosis..or ostensibly rubber-reality narratives...but not always...some of the rubber realities are not explained by "psychosis" narratives. Though some narrative of psychosis, whether expressed in style or exemplified in biography, does not include most "it was all a nightmare" conventions of endings.
This is a way to sub catagorize symbols of psyches: a new way to peruse the infinite library for the viewer, they can follow Psychiatric Horror to frame Drama, like Persona, or the compound genre like Aliens, or the expose's like Shock Corridor. Or, Citizen Kane.
Psychiatric Horror biggest problem as a genre, is that too much of it has Tolkiens correspondences to symbols. Orcs, Monsters, etc. are subjective states that have Horror but we see them not thinking they are pure psychic energies set into a sequence...frequently of doubt of reality.
I mean, really, Dragons? No, they represent some psychology of character that cannot be bound by mere quotidian reality. Yet, if one sees, hears and is affected by Dragons, in a Psy Horror film, that person is an example of someone who has lost reality. Its still Realism.
Punk, is a catagory. I would like to see a catagory of Punk movies, however, this is pretty well transiting to digital reference insofar as "related movies" as a search catagory covers the genre and what it could be, very well.
Repo Man next to Sid and Nancy, next to Decline of Western Civ docs, or, even movies that people who described themselves a Punk back in the day, and who know have evidence of how that self designation was affirmed in different media. Their consuming patterns then presented to other viewers as Punk.
Science Fiction remains a categery but its too cluttered too.
Fantasy now requires a Psy test. Or, it is wanting to live in a atavistic time analgous to the Middle Ages?
Fantasy Horror, Vampires, Werewolves, but not Aliens or Godzilla or Frankenstein...is also under psychiatric horror.
Well, I think the idea is understood.
We could think of purifying all categories and reducing them to Realism vs. Fantasy, yet, there are too many useful categories. What we look for instead is the same as what is being done on Netflix, however, the classification is shoddy, nor is there enough usefully provocative categories as they depend upon old Industrial terms, dramas, comedy, and new 'make it personal' or (variations of 'my list').
I am saying we dispense with borrowing old genre's and making connections by way of 'suggestions' based on examples...the mirror effect is okay, but, the preceding lists are quickly wrong in association.
Instead, the genre's should narrow and focus in...on issues, like Environmental movies...that is a good example of a subject into which movies are dumped.
But reality TV is not a good term. Autobiographical is probably better.
Documentary is an old term as well that is no longer useful. Dividing them by ideology would be useful.
Same with Drama. Same with Action. Same with Comedy. Break them all down into smaller categories.
Comedy should be sub-divided. We are not perusing the shelf at the video store and we are even further away from the Comedy-Drama dichotomy of Classical Greek thought.
No, its a computer and our schemes are nearly infinite.
So, we get the "visually exciting" category, which is what we all know as bullshit...as visually exciting is probably someone else's list.
In Horror, we get such uneven, so many sub genre's...really, the list can be redefined, and sometimes there is doozy's...such as one I remember being "stories based on Campbell's Hero with a thousand faces".
Not that I would be attracted to that genre.
The idea being I the user, would select a horror, then a comedy horror, and this brings up a list. No problem.
However, I want a comedy horror which is a cartoon with rock music (no orchestration).
Or, a bad Hollywood movie. This is an objective catagory, a bad Hollywood movie. Or a biography about Hollywood that is a farce.
Farce and Satire would be extremely useful categories...never used. Nor is that being really handy with the definition for its academic parsing..oh, until now.
Its just defining once by one academic that then that applied!
So, to speak of defining for once and for all, that can include structures of dialogue and of course, some categorical errors, but, by and large I can watch a satire. About World War 2. That is a good selection of movies, though it may be well applied today in some search engine, these errors of say then including All's Quiet on the Western Front, is not really a comedy.
But this problem is ongoing and gets a lot of visual play. Clearly, we see how unstable its all becoming.
Hence, I think a dynamic between Realism (cmon, really showing reality) without breaking the boundary of reason...and with humor within the character interaction, and not violating the fourth wall.
Breaking the fourth wall, why, that would be super reality, or epic theater (which is a stupid terminizing, okay?).
Or Reality TV, now broken into autobiographical reality tv or fly on the wall reality TV, or game reality TV.
Though the character can address the audience, and the character can know the cameras are there, there is some other gig going on, like sports, or games.
A Reality TV that is addressing the audience, like Rick Steves, is Auto-Biography but of a objective factor, while there is auto-biography which is of a subjective factor, wherein, Rick is serving us with a novelty of a Europe we cannot visit, while others are serving us by showing themselves working and their emotional reactions to working, sometimes through the lens.
Which would include most of reality tv but also Forrest Gump, and other narratives as told by a narrator.
Not Citizen Kane, which has a opening and closing bookend narrator(s), but we really dont get to know them, those reporters.
However, that would be a sneaking into many new genrifications or cross index (and new categories to call cross indexing), an error prone inclusion.
Probably this is a temporary error due to low computation (although I am predicting this system for higher computation than today!), wherein, the program cannot tell the difference between audio that is addressing the other in tone being the other on screen or off screen.
Maybe in the future THAT GAP will close.
Apart from an initial experiment, somewhat successful, in machine visual analysis being able to distinguish genre's of painters based on style of brushstroke and "styles" of color, the organization across genre of similar narratives occurs simultaneously, not just due to formal accidents.
Say, the opening scene of Wizard Of OZ just seems to fit with the opening song on Dark Side of the Moon.
That kind of mix, which is accidental, I am seeking to engineer into a program that identifies where this does work...and even has some modifications to shoe horn these formerly disparate media and story setting together.
Again, this accident is cross indexing by a human mind, thinking, "maybe this'll sound right?" but the computer can handle this, I am thinking, so that, in systems of narrative as defined by various authors, one can dial around their ways of systemizing narrative, to make a database wherein, say, all scenes of action that occur 20 minutes into the viewing, wherein, the action is composed of nearly the same sequence of shot reverse shot, close up, spectacle of disaster...cut to the Hero, more action, reverse shot, you know, etc.
Barthes, Popper, Campbell, Bordwell, and other literary theorist have systemizations.
Yet, what is suggested is both somewhere beyond mere timing correspondences (which seem ubiquitous and more so, odd in what is then interchangeable), beyond replacing characters by masking and recomposing animation from another production (mentioned in the previous essay), and then fragile systems thought up by theorists...which fail even as they proliferate in diversity!
Yet they do establish a range or some metrics, these narrative theories.
Their parameters can be related to a visual computer program that reads takes notes on where transition occur. Except, its pacing where it breaks, and then within pacing, these narrative schemes, such as the Hero by Campbell being template for Star Wars, these narrative schemes are ruled first by pacing, which it then ruled by movement and other rhythms, like cutting, actions, and also saturation of elements in a scene. The list is large.
Therein, each shot has associated with it timing, color, tone, fps, genre, spatial position of camera, emotional content, and correspondance in dialogue.
All movies that ever existed can be databased this way.
We see the manipulation, by human hands and editing interfaces, that create machinima, or crank out the same genre...in great conformity and mass.
These creates templates...more or less the same area in timing...which is then enables by changing the FPS (the scene is recreated in 3-d). Changes in camera angle, and changes in character and dialogue...
I think Steve Martin did with with the "Man who Wore Plaid", or Allen's "Zelig".
Yet, what I am talking about is more binge-watching scale. Also, a way to watch the same movie, yet with slight, or even if desired, dialed in increase in cross genre integration...more and more alterations of the narrative sequence.
Patische and collage, sure, but run by a computer with a program that sees and hears and makes more reasonable connections that mere chaotic jump cuts.
The best way to execute this freedom is by way of time traveler, insofar as that can include all genre's, rubber reality, or straight narrative.
However, we can expect the idea of the time traveler genre to break down. There is a history to it, which include Wells, to Gene Wolfe's novel There Are Doors, wherein, time travel is psychologically too exhausting.
This history is visible in Doctor Who, Hyperspace, and many other sci fi sets, but, that idea I am arguing, is going to fail as other genre's break out into the Cross indexing Festival.
For instance, Cyberpunk. Which is poorly named, but we thought we were reading a sci fi dystopian future in Neuromancer, yet, it seems more like it was contemporaneous. One has to get over the Juvenile sensibility of Gibson in these early novels, though its a consistent portrayal like Cheap Trick and Aerosmith seem to also represent Junior High, rather than High School.
Its due to a sense of subjectivity or increased "the personal", as then the world's horizon beyond which is ignorance, is closer. The flaw in individualism.
So the Juvenile sensibilities fit the deflection away from advancing future to a more JG Ballard feeling of not only what is sometimes termed Near Sci fi, wherein its "only ten years away", to another level, which is also not only another pleasure of sci-fi, in "its relevant in its insight and values", to instead feel like this is a future-now, which is just a matter of finding out where its happening in the big broad world. A compression.
That sense of things getting both smaller and larger at the same time. Dilation of time with these devices, so that I can see across the earth instantly.
For instance, in Gibson world, one who is very rich can buy access to real-time satellite footage of wherever they want.
Yet soon, (like five years) the "old real time satellite" will allow subscribers to use it for business applications...though thats done even now, but I mean to look down on the earth from any perspective in real time, to...drop down and provide a bottle of cold beer and a flyer from a drone.
I think Steve Martin did with with the "Man who Wore Plaid", or Allen's "Zelig".
Yet, what I am talking about is more binge-watching scale. Also, a way to watch the same movie, yet with slight, or even if desired, dialed in increase in cross genre integration...more and more alterations of the narrative sequence.
Patische and collage, sure, but run by a computer with a program that sees and hears and makes more reasonable connections that mere chaotic jump cuts.
The best way to execute this freedom is by way of time traveler, insofar as that can include all genre's, rubber reality, or straight narrative.
However, we can expect the idea of the time traveler genre to break down. There is a history to it, which include Wells, to Gene Wolfe's novel There Are Doors, wherein, time travel is psychologically too exhausting.
This history is visible in Doctor Who, Hyperspace, and many other sci fi sets, but, that idea I am arguing, is going to fail as other genre's break out into the Cross indexing Festival.
For instance, Cyberpunk. Which is poorly named, but we thought we were reading a sci fi dystopian future in Neuromancer, yet, it seems more like it was contemporaneous. One has to get over the Juvenile sensibility of Gibson in these early novels, though its a consistent portrayal like Cheap Trick and Aerosmith seem to also represent Junior High, rather than High School.
Its due to a sense of subjectivity or increased "the personal", as then the world's horizon beyond which is ignorance, is closer. The flaw in individualism.
So the Juvenile sensibilities fit the deflection away from advancing future to a more JG Ballard feeling of not only what is sometimes termed Near Sci fi, wherein its "only ten years away", to another level, which is also not only another pleasure of sci-fi, in "its relevant in its insight and values", to instead feel like this is a future-now, which is just a matter of finding out where its happening in the big broad world. A compression.
That sense of things getting both smaller and larger at the same time. Dilation of time with these devices, so that I can see across the earth instantly.
For instance, in Gibson world, one who is very rich can buy access to real-time satellite footage of wherever they want.
Yet soon, (like five years) the "old real time satellite" will allow subscribers to use it for business applications...though thats done even now, but I mean to look down on the earth from any perspective in real time, to...drop down and provide a bottle of cold beer and a flyer from a drone.
No comments:
Post a Comment