?I am a rhinoceros?: memory and the ethics and aesthetics of materiality in film

Abstract

AbstractIn his book Vision and Painting Norman Bryson writes ‘the image that suppresses deixis [i.e. the act of pointing or designating] has no interest in its own genesis or past, except to bury it in a palimpsest of which only the final version shows through’ (Bryson 1983: 92). Bryson's remark brings a set of questions and problems to the fore regarding memory and film; that the technique and material used for remembering and the making of memory intersects with what will be constituted as memory, and that a trace of the act of making memory should be present in the material. Consequently we cannot avoid considering both an ethics and poetics when approaching memory. The arguments are exemplified by a comprehensive discussion and analysis of two films that belong to the experimental film tradition: Malcolm Le Grice's Little Dog for Roger (1967) and Gunvor Nelson's Red Shift (1984).

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 6 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.