CONFERENCERubén Guzmán

[Fundación Telefónica, Buenos Aires, March 13th, 2008]

Punto y Raya, Freedom and Orderby Rubén Guzmán

[extract]

To me, this festival is almost like a circle. More than a circle I would relate it to Paul Klee's notion of the development of Time in a spiralled shape.

And I get the impression that when we watch the short films featured in this festival, we are really going back to basics. It is as if we have completed the circle, ALMOST a circle: there's a difference. That is why I would illustrate it using Paul Klee's spiral. Later on I will develop this concept to make it clearer. But before that, I would like to talk about this:

 

The Morse Code has been employed until not long ago; in fact, 30 years ago I had to do an exam about it. Let me tell you something about its history. This is an excerpt from Wikipedia [Spanish version]:

The Morse code was developed in 1835 by Alfred Vail, as he

collaborated with Samuel Morse on the invention of the electric telegraph. Vail created a method for transmitting telegraphic information, using standardised sequences of short and long elements to represent the letters and numerals" (let's point out that almost all our communicational artillery consists of letters and numbers, somehow) “The short and long elements can be formed by sounds, marks or pulses and are commonly known as "dots" and "dashes" or "dits" and "dahs". Telegraphic signals differ in time duration from the active signal. · A dash is equal to three dots. · The space between parts of the same letter is equal to one dot. · The space between two letters is equal to three dots.· The space between two words is equal to five dots. Morse patented this invention together with the electric telegraph. It was named American Morse Code.

Now, what I'd like to point out here is that this determines an interesting parameter when talking about dots and lines: the relation between the dot and the line is based on their duration, is based on Time.

This establishes a direct link between the dot·lines and audiovisual media, which have four dimensions. It can be said that a dot is a minimum duration, a flash of a line, or that a line is a series of dots. Thus, both are closely intertwined.

Dot and line are primal or simplified elements based on the notion of Time. Their abstract and simplified characters link them directly to the vanguard cinema.

· Walter Ruttman | Opus 1 [1919]

And I will add a little observation here to develop this idea a bit further. We have seen many examples of the early vanguard cinema, which started around 1919 with the first completely abstract, non-figurative films. It existed already on paper, but when talking about cinema, it can be said that the first abstract film was possibly

realised in 1919, the exact date is still uncertain. And I'm not talking about Richter's, but about Walter Ruttman's first works.

This first stage of the development of vanguard cinema was called absolute cinema and it lasted approximately until the mid 20's. The Swedish Eggeling is one of its main representatives, we have seen earlier an excerpt of his Diagonal Symphony. If you take a look at Punto y Raya's programme you will undoubtedly find parallels with many of the films featured there.

Vanguard cinema is actually the basis of all cinema. More directly, of non-conventional, underground and experimental cinema. Rudold Arnheim was a great fan, critic and theorist of vanguard cinema, and I wish to quote from him:

“Without order, freedom is sterile.”

I think that this principle rules many things, this little chat among them. And to illustrate this, try to imagine any Chinese ideogram. Within that ideogram you can appreciate the freedom of the brush, or of the artist using the brush.

Now, if there were only freedom, that ideogram couldn't be used as a communication channel. But it conveys information precisely because there is an invisible grid, that is, and Order consisting of nine squares which we cannot perceive, but remain implicit each time we see a Chinese ideogram. This is the Order within the brush's Freedom. From this conjunction arises a communication channel.

Time can also abide by a system of order, a necessary order for a concept or idea to be conveyed. In the case of the Morse Code, we find that the rules are established according to Time. Without those rules the Morse code wouldn't operate, it is very important to bear that in mind. Now, the Morse code was used until not long ago in situations where communication was critical. I'm talking about aeronavigation, where communication was of vital importance. And

it's been used for 170 years, quite a long span of time considering communication technologies.

Another important issue when dealing with communication is simplification. Clarity, critical time and a decipherable code exceed all languages. The Morse code is applicable to any existing language.

In the early films of absolute cinema -like Ruttman's film I mentioned before- we find experimental narratives. And I insist that the narrative form is always present, even when dealing with non-figurative images. Of course, in those cases we will find different interpretations. Most of these works may not be of your liking, but each person's perception differ. Where we come from, our cultural background or personal situation at that moment... the venue's characteristics, all these factors have an effect on our interpretation of an experimental work. I mean, an experimental work -by definition- is meant for an active audience, not a passive one (that kind of spectator, who generally consumes corporative media).

Going back to experimental narratives, these have many interpretations, depending on the amount of persons and cultures involved. This shouldn't pose any problem; the spectator simply adopts an active approach to what he sees and hears. But the problem is that our society still perceives things with a XIX century mind. I'm paraphrasing McLuhan here, when he writes about the process of reasoning, scientific reasoning mainly.

· Marshall McLuhan

It seems like we have retreated several years -at least since the last 40 years- and most people tend to feel somewhat uncomfortable -to put it mildly- when confronted with abstraction. What happens here is that the spectator has no reference whatsoever to hang on to; there is no authorised voice-over to drag him or her by the nose. For instance, we are used to tuning in to Discovery Channel and being led from beginning to end by a voice-

over (mostly male, to convey more authority). Well, there are other ways to communicate; not only the conventional ones but also those meant for an active spectator, because we already know the conventional formula. We always watch the same movie: the one structured around the main conflict theory, which is taught at absolutely all cinema schools in our country. In Raoul Ruiz's own words, the main conflict theory states:

“A story begins when someone wants something and somebody else doesn't want him to get it”.

That's it. 99% of the industrial films –mostly from Hollywood– follow this formula, this format.

But going back to the Morse code, there's another element without which communication with the receptor would be impossible: a spatial sequence where nothing happens. That is, a vacuum. An absence, a silence, or what we don't see (when talking about an image). And there lies a hidden wealth; as spectators we find there a small space to reason, a space we can inhabit through contemplation -if we have enough time-, a space where we can wonder; a fascinating sport, problem is that we have ever less possibilities to exercise it. Without silence the Morse code wouldn't exist, it couldn't be used as a means for communication.

I wanted to add another important element, a concept proposed by Michel Chion, a French composer and theorist who wonders about what we hear from what we see and what we see from what we hear. I find this an excellent notion, specially when applied to abstraction. In fact, during the first stage in the development of experimental cinema, authors worked a lot on this notion; firstly because there was no sound: up until the year '29 sound didn't exist. Some worked with friend composers, some even were musicians themselves (and you can tell by the kind of animations they made). But what I mean by this is that even when the image lacks a soundtrack it always brings to mind a sound, and a sound always brings to mind an image. It may not be something concrete, figurative, and surely each person has his own interpretation. But I agree with Chion that each image brings to mind a sound and each sound brings to mind an image.

In the realms of Art and new technologies there is also order. An order often imposed by the market and its tendencies. This order is commonly accepted not only by the artists but also by the curators (the case is much graver when it comes to curators, in my opinion).

But art isn't a market, there's no such thing as an Art market. Art, as Derrick de Kerckhove said, is actually an eruption. It is the hot lava, still shapeless. When the lava is already solidified and cold it is accepted by the ground and there are no risks anymore, there is no eruption; we're dealing with an accepted situation and therefore, not so artistic, perhaps.

Mc Luhan –going back to this Canadian thinker – said that the we live in the “era of anxiety”. I agree, why not calling this the "era of anxiety"? It is an era of anxiety and besides, it's full of instated global violence. I think that in this era it becomes necessary, perhaps, to rethink certain things, to inhabit this space and think. To think if we want to search for a new path, to find a trajectory a bit more intelligent, a bit more humane, more dignified. And I think that in this sense, to go back to basics, to go back to simplicity and understand that abstraction isn't our enemy -quite the contrary, abstraction can be our best friend- may be the starting point for deep reflection. And this is where I think that this festival has earned its place. I think that Ana and Nöel are inviting us to inhabit this unusual space not yet absorbed by the art market.

With this I conclude my little talk.