Regarding life, I am attempting to capitalize on the depressed situation in the economy by venturing out and risking failure if need be. I am attempting to start a company with which I can perform some of the services that I have talent enough to capitalize on at a high quality. Be on the lookout for BrownStar Bound Inc.
The VISIBILITY of RELATIONALITY:
PERSPECTIVES, AESTHETICS, & KINOPSIS
PERSPECTIVES, AESTHETICS, & KINOPSIS
PART ONE:
RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVES
I. New Perceptions, New Worldviews
River of Relationality, the soil, the there is becoming
Swimming with Fools, Quacks, and Brain-thinks abound
yet missed by these drowning fish even in a shrinking world
Missed in favor of images, of things framed in this River
Indeed, these fish have not eyes for seeing flowing-matter
Worse, they are imprisoned in perspectives that deny the River
New Perspectives, new styles, new worldviews, new cinemas,
these shall open new perceptions, and bring these sea basses oxygen
And what of new perceptions? Perceptions new of what? Of the River of Relationality, no doubt. And? What of new perceptions of such? Have we not them now? The philosopher, Fool, ever more rapidly proclaims the ineptitude of the scientist, Quack, in witnessing this river. For Quack has no conception of the role of memory, the imagination, or meaning in humen’s perception of the River. Quack just manipulates limited models of meaningless objects as objective things. What of all the Cartesianism of the Fool, shouts Quack. No less than we does the Fool engage in acts of judgment in placing perceived objects into transcendental concepts and object = x-forms, alienating, categorizing, philosophizing!
Enough! Both Fool and Quack have only just returned to the River of Relationality with force and conviction. Do they well to content themselves with fluid perceptions of the river, than solid perceptions of mirage-things. And what of the speculating masses, Brain-Think? Does it perceive this River, this shimmering sea, this flowing existence? Nay, nay, nay! What’s this? A new character, the social critic, Madman, makes his presence visible. Nay! he shouts. Brainthink sees nothing but clichés, cinematic clichés, televisual clichés, musical clichés, political clichés, historical clichés and projections, and has not the slightest intuition of the connections between these clichés to themselves in time and to other clichés in the same space of the public sphere. Nay, blind has become the Brainthink to Relationality!
From the sky to the earth, Brain-think, Fool, Madman, and Quack must return to the ‘there is becoming’ which underlies the object-in-general or thing, to the site and soil of the sensible and opened River, such as it becomes lived in our bodies. To hell with all objects, things, and categories, let us move towards a perception based in rhythm and modulation, a sea of transforming forms.
Breathtaking evolutions in technology have become evermore frequent; as the technology so the humen, for breathtaking evolutions are similarly becoming more frequent in biological, sociological, and psychological manners along at least generational lines. Throughout the 20th Century, the quality of humen has progressed towards the neo-human end on the scale of the realization of human potential (one the range proto-human-neo), as a new culture of global intersubjective communication has Easter risen from the ashes of war and fear-mongering. With airplanes, the globalizing culture and media industries, the Internet, global commerce and cultural exchange, we have become to recognize a global relational sociology.
Local and global Relational images are becoming necessary for ourselves evolution; myself, and the fool Merleau-Ponty for one, want to reach beyond the visual givens, to open upon a texture of the river which the discrete sensorial messages, the images, become only caesura, pauses, and intervals of. To step deeper still into the river of relations which bathes the things and worlds ourselves perceive; not for fame or glory, but to provide a breaking point in the evolutionary velocity of humen. With our technology, with our global economy, with our globalizing one-dimensional culture of the Spectacle, with our appreciation of relational sociology and global ecology, ourselves need new perspectives, new psycho-ideological perspectives, onto the river of Relationality and the function of our milieu in the duration of this our evolving species and world.
The global socio-economic unity of humen must be a step towards neo-humans, like the continental unity of South America must become a step towards new independent states. This increasing relational sociology can become shown, given perceptive actualization, in such an acentered film as Rod Frinckes’ 1992 film Baraka, a non-narrative film, similar to Koyanniqatsi, which expresses the relations of cultural and religious customs across the globe, silently whispering ourselves interrelatedness (even to primates).
New perspectives mean new styles and worldviews, means new manners of unifying our perceptive experience, means new depth, new dimensions, new spaces of relation between art-image, spectator, and its World. For us to arrive into a future in which our relatedness to each other, of America to Iraq, of American workers to Chinese Workers, of American markets to imported foreign goods, of lower-class homeless veterans to upper-class defense industry military executives, in which these have become as obvious as the materiality of the medium from which you currently read, ourselves will need new perspectives, new Worldviews, new foundational principles for our intersubjective reality.
Alas, ‘tis a wall that has stood so long because it has been fortified; our entire language has the anti-relational perspective of ancient fools and quacks. Ourselves mind-eye has become trained in this objectifying perspective. How can we adjust this perspective? The image-perspective, of course; the relational perspective and aesthetics of kinopsis. Well, first off, of what is becoming this relational perspective?
II. Cinematic Universe of Becoming Relations and Images
Imagistic Universe, images of machinic movement, of becoming Seas
No God or Man directing this assemblage, this universal cinema
Indeed, God, Man, and Things rendered but insignificants
All flow, all history, movement relating parts in spacetime
Reflections of light on this steel water of flowing-matter
Blocs, nay pebbles, appearing though erased just as soon,
shredded for the sea floor, becoming that from which it arose.
Even the soil of the sea becomes the minerals of the as-if-is pebbles
Nay, lies are these things, these pebbles, these forms,
For transformation be elixir elemental of this mobile perspective of the Whole
Force, rhythm, intensities, densities; these are what swim this sea we unsee.
Yea, these and the seas of Spectators in the Machine Brain
Becoming spectator holding a shifting blurring bubble of images
A frame by elimination and categorization for its pleasure and ends
Needy these Image-centers, crafting surreal realities with and against others
Dividing the divisible, making rigid the changing, centering the acentered
Coming towards and leaving in attention thus crafting relations of space
Nearing and faring in interest thus shaping the duration of time
Embodied web of sense-act, sensing and perceiving as its materiality allows
Becoming in this sea, thus related to I, You and We in history
Images, all, all movement, evolution, relations, spacetime, and spectators.
III. Perspective Images of Intervals, Movement, and Force
Horizons of mvmt-images appearing at the edges of frames
Eliminations take spacetime, takes intervals like flames
With and through these el(um)inations images dance
Whether the dance is for rain, the force, or things; pure chance
Mvmt-images dance with image-centers along vibrating paths
Uncanny, cliché, and mystical these fluid-waves they crash
Event-full becomes the perception of the spectator
A montage of pcpt., affect, action-images; interests play regulator
The fools Relationalists must take the intervals back from cliché sight
Fill in the darkness between, like the moon filling night
Must reveal the space of connection btw spectator-images-Seas
where manifold vibrations tickle vibrations memorial’s fancies
IV. Rhythmic-Chaos Beneath Sensation and Perception
The bodily sensing, the rhythmic sensing before the perceived
The wave-force swaying this body in the River like reeds
Un, not, or pleasant becomes the waves against this body
varying measurements and measureds in this sea of mvmt, this folly
Vibrations passing over and under orders and levels
Spectators perceiving only after aesthetic comprehension
Perceiving in conflict, in need, in and through dimensions
Perceiving in repetition, in contraction, in relation
Tension in these translations, in these intervals and vibration
The mind’s eye meets the eye’s mind when are unsettled
This tension the Relationalists must reveal
This tension btw the objective, the surreal, and the ideal
This unseen tense relation btw Spectator and Sea
Btw the seen, the out-of-frame, the imagination, and we
This open rhythmic chaos, this sea of wave-force btw
Here becomes the aesthetics of the Relationalists and King
V. The Spectacle and the Cliché Perspective
Dancing clichés meet dancing pen and men
in the Spectacle’s tentacles of after-image land
Fetishized owned things dance screaming
Screaming perform! Consume and keep Dreaming!
Structured are these after-images, structuring
all around dogmatic cliché structures rupturing
Betwixt image-objects, subjects, and imagos
Between mvmt, pcpt, affection, and action images
Worldviews of crystals, of closed unclosed things
Worldviews with a history fabricated like divine kings
Madmen shout in unison, voices that could murder
Seems they can stand this reactionary world no further
Culture industries, apparatuses, and spheres
all saturated with after-images that refuse their years
Saturating squarely into psyches and sights
But relational perspectives come prepared for the fight
The Relationalists banishes the dynamic closed set
with open figural frameworks of vibration instead
Banishes the past with progressive images and cultures
Battles with moving sensations against frozen cliché vultures
Movement shall thaw these clichés, these solid stones
Into water then! With the flow these shall atone
Nay, the river washes over pebbles, and this will not do
Nay, in the vapor will these clichés ooze,
where crystals are revealed to be moving molecules
VI. Perspectives Cliché and Relational
To where look we for perspective?
At not the of but the in, at not what but how
The how of the Fool becomes Inquisition
The in of the Deviant becomes Alternation.
Perspective and Cs. like spotted spectacles
Absent presences which tap into visibility
which tap visibility into present absences
Idols for me, icons for he, and living images for we
Here becomes the Relationalists chant.
Relational perspective, that view onto process,
that play of perception, that dynamism of living images
We must sublim(at)e the Brain’s cliché perspective!
Not the car but the drive interests us
Not the cliché but the mystical arose us
Not the things, things swimming in fluid
but forms transmutating in the vapor of sensation
We Relationalists must reveal force, conflict, chaos
the sublime out-there towards images of gaseous sight
The movement that becomes all in relations
The movement that border-crosses for better inter-tens-ation
PART TWO:
Relational Aesthetics
I. Art, the Event of De-automatizing Cliché-vision
Art, that banana peel which slips the cliché perspective
That injection of vital tension in the arm of the eye's mind
Transforming the given before the spectating eyes
Art, peel back wool and show the potential for change
Inject alternative perspectives into the mind's eye
Whisper Becoming and Relationality to formed spectators
Art, subway of spectator-sensing-art-image machine-relation
Arming spectators with sensations for interpretation
Be for translation and mvmt., Relational Deviants
Art thou the subway ride event in its entirety
and not merely the passing lights and pillars in their particularity
II. Tension, Attention, Attendance, and Stretching Clichés
Tension, you force of the Vapor
voice of movement and relations in this Universe
Unpleasant thus eliminated
you provoke the action of attention
Stretching clichés and sight
tension you bring the spectator on the scene
Attendance, animation, and association
all these do you use to speak Relations to we,
to we the Relationalists, the stretchers of clichés.
III. Relations made evident by Tension in the Art-event
Relations do these tensions communicate
Btw the seen and the unseen, the act and the work
These tensions in the image-perspective
Relations do they speak, these unpleasants
Between seer and shower, spectator and Deviant
Relations of space and time in the open duration
Relations, those progressive and mystical events
These do the tension in and between the openings
into and through-which the image-perspective make seen
These deviant, Relationalists, show to seers that would see the unseen.
IV. The Spectator-sensing-Art-image Machine Relation
Clouds, parts within the vapor of the art-event
Parts of revelation, parts of opening, vignettes of motion
Vignettes relating spectators to Earths and Worlds
Complex image-figurals reflecting light onto the dark flow
the Becoming-Relationality, that sea, that river, the train, that gas
Crystal worldviews must be constructions then,
Unhappy must be the spectator with blurred vision of the vapor
For harmony tis all this vapor doth know, a tense harmony
Refuse those cliché spectacles, refuse that limitation
Look upon the depth beneath, those Relations of Becoming
Lightening, hear me, lightening! To rip open textures,
reveal filled molecules in the dark space of the night sky.
Lightening, electricity of Becoming-Relationality
Thus becomes the art-event for the spectator
Thus becomes the Relationalists’ aim
Art-image, bring chaos to the cliché perspective
Be that Cezanne, that modulator and relativator
Be those new eyes, that tension, that vibration, that rhythm,
Awaken, forces! Vibrate, color! Escape those solid forms!
Vivid becomes this frame, this image-prspctv
Your rhythm shifts time, your rhythm shifts space
Your vibration doth sway with negative, neutrals, and positives
Vivid by way of your variations of perspective
Kinesthetic, these become art-images relational
These become the source of rhythm and vivacity
These your tool! Relationalist Deviant and Fool
Kinoptical Aesthetics. Go now, speak of the shift with sheer audacity!
V. Flux kinoptical Art-images, Flux-images
Flux-images, gas of perspectives
Vibration waves of montage, of sensations
more than fixed and flow, you pulsate flux-image
This pulsation, drops in the web of memory-traces
Gate to the palace of the dancing imagos of the Id
In-flux with the Cliché perspective, dust in the wind
stretch those forms, mutate and montage those after-images.
Btw images, btw mediums, btw spectator and performance
These Relationalists are your techniques, these flux-images
Flux forms formed flurries that fixed flows into fish from Finland fed
tension till torpedoes of thought teared tires to treed translation for transformational art-images, imagined artfully to fly
like Finland’s fish into the in-flux flurry of this vapor.
Vapor, said the flux, vapor…and fish.
To fry, asked I? No, to fill.
VI. Kinoptical Art-events as Situations
Situations, these become the symbol of Relationality
Reveal that relation which becomes the spectator
which is becoming the spectator-sensing-art-image
More than mere facts and events, open up built-space
Transform locales so that action happens within and without
Relational Aesthetics, that the situation becomes
Intermedia, that the situation becomes
Invisible theatre, that the situation becomes
Be that door to the game of resistance
Be that, Relational Deviant, and become no more
PART THREE:
SITUAKINOPSIS EVENTS
Opsis, the Greek word for spectacle, appearance, sight, and view, was characterized as the least important aspect of tragedy for Aristotle in his Poetics. The fool claimed that tragedy becomes felt even without representation and actors. How far from the out-there of this milieu do the words of the fool ring to our ears; yet in his own time, a time that praised the written word as it praised the writing of words, the poet’s role indeed became more important than the putter on stage, the metteur en scene, the director. In this milieu, opsis, what has become referred to as the mise-en-scene of performing arts, is becoming the elemental elixir for Situakinoptical art-events.
Opsis becomes the means of the transmission of mvmt-images from and through the situakinoptical art-image in the art-event. Mise-en-scene in the cinema and in theatre can refer to everything that occurs before the camera and on stage and their arrangement; that means everything, every inch of the frame, every actor, every prop, every location. The mise-en-scene of cinema, opsis, becomes the Spectacle of cinema itself; the perspective on the whole which every image separately and cumulatively works to create.
With opsis, and uniquely it in comparison to other visual mediums, the World itself may become art-image, and not just the art-image becoming a world to express the World and Earth. Opsis becomes the correlative to the cinematic universe of mvmt-images; just as the vapor of the Becoming-Relations becomes a pure duration of mvmt-images, artificially closed sets of movement, action, and interaction of matter, which become relatively and absolutely related to larger sets from centered perspectives in spacetime, so does the cinema as alternative art-image become sets (frames, shots) of a set of mvmt-images in a definite duration. The mechanical reproduction of the shared World, with a machine eye more powerful and analytical than the human eye, grants opsis its emblematic Worldview (view onto world, opsis onto World) crafting potentiality, grants opsis what Deviant Maya Deren called its authority. Only such a power of Worldview access and alteration can battle the World of the Spectacle with any significant force in this milieu.
When opsis becomes situakinoptical, when it becomes an alternative art-image used in a situation, properly in-flux and kinesthetic, and addressed to the eye and visual sensation, it becomes a Situakinopsis Event; here opsis, the spectacle of cinema, becomes the reconstruction of the spectacle of the Spectacular World into the spectacle of the Progressive World (on the range Spectacular-Conventional-Progressive in regards to the quantity of clichés a Worlds uses or does not). How becomes cinema optical? Brain-think and Fool shout that cinema always becomes optical, for we watch it. Far too many foolish deviants, such as auteur Germaine Dulac (1882-1942), have other things to say.
Dulac, auteur one of the earliest dream Surrealist kinopsis pieces, The Seashell and the Clergyman (1926) ( Available to watch at http://www.ubu.com/film/dulac_coquille.html), was concerned that cinema, though a uniquely visual art, did not seek its emotion in the pure optic sense; cinema was, and still is, becoming far too literary. This becomes the affirmative and conventional (rather than progressive) cinematic art-image, the spectacle of the Spectacular world for the entertainment of Brain-think in Prspctv-prspctv. Here one finds facts and not events and situations, story instead of sensation and translation, solids instead of liquid and vapor; here becomes the difference between X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Colin Barton’s Intestinal Fortitude.
In the latter film, the image-perspective addresses the feelings and intelligence, the perception and comprehension of the spectator, by harmonies, chords, shadow, light, rhythm, mvmt, force, and chaos. Whereas X-Men- as an Affirmative art-image of facts- attempts to tell plot driven narratives and stories of solid persons and easily recognizable things and easily understandable casual action, Intestinal Fortitude- as an art-event- becomes an optical event, that draws upon chaos, tension, and translation to create a set of vapor that becomes up to the mind’s eye and the eye’s mind (rather than the Ego) of the spectator to comprehend and perceive what meaning and out-there it shall. The visual image swims the psyche in depths which the words and language of the ego do not; images may suggest thousands of thoughts and words, and optical art-images prefer these any day to cliché dialogue in cliché narratives with affirmative and conventional aesthetic styles.
Dulac, in 1928, thought that cinema had become anti-visual, and that a great reform was needed. Speak Dulac! The future belongs to the film that cannot be told. The seventh art, that of the screen, becomes depth rendered perceptible, the depth that lies beneath the surface of stories; it becomes the musical ungraspable. The more we get rid of the plot to go in the direction of visual cinema, the more we will work for the seventh art. Indeed. More than any element, the literary stories and the plots of cliché cinematic art-images destroy the visuality of cinema; attention becomes more addressed to the what of linguistic solids (what’s happening in the narrative) than to the how of vapor (how does this affect one). The first delimitation of kinopsis art-images becomes that they address themselves not to a narrative but to a unified optical sensation and an image of various translations of the relative affection of the spectators.
What of the in-flux and kinesthesia, how may cinema participate in this luxury? Barton’s kinopsis seems the flux-image par excellence. Every image becomes what it is not, every image transforms, every image moves. Indeed, it seems difficult to even imagine a kinopsis art-image more gorgeously in-flux than Intestinal Fortitude, difficult to imagine an art-image in which forms become rendered more vaporously. The hundred second piece speaks of the flux more than prosaic words ever could. All motion, all juxtaposition of images, different layers by way of superimposition and manually manipulating the film, all rhythmic-chaos and optical poetry.
Contrast Intestinal Fortitude to X-Men, wherein which frames and shots become static, the motion in between images by way of transition is becoming guided and simple, and the rhythm of cutting only increases on action that becomes edited to appear as-if-is happening in the same time. Frames are fixed, rather than flowing, in-flux, living-images and figurals, as in Fortitude. In X-Men, things become solid, rather than vaporous, and express story rather than the translation and transformation of mvmt, pcpt, affection, and action-images in the intervals of framed spacetime.
This becomes motion, this becomes kinesthesia and the tension of translation expressed. A less extreme version of the cinematic flux-image has become Maurice Lemaitre’s L’Amour Reinvente (1979) (http://ubu.com/film/lemaitre_amour.html). Once again, every frame moves, every image vibrates with aesthetic transformation; there are no solid, cliché, after-image forms in the vapor of the flux-image, as every image pulsates with difference, change, transformation, and mvmt. Both Fortitude and L’Amour Reinvente reveal all that has been said and needs to be said of Flux-images. These become contrasted to a fixed art-image which nevertheless becomes kinoptical, a fixed kinoptical art image; Chris Marker’s La Jetee (1962). Here still (freeze framed) cinematogrammes, only a few actually shot on still camera, become edited in such a manner that even these vibrate motion. Marker also subtly brings back in motion in some of the later shots, as when the love interest lies in bed. Editing can make even still and fixed opsis-images kinoptical.
Throughout fixed-flow-flux cinematic images, the through line of montagistic formation continues. Montage becomes pivotal to kinesthesia in kinopsis, to the image-perspective of kinopsis art-images; montage becomes the perspective of the kinopsis piece, the perspective the piece attempts to share in interpreting in the event, and attempts to open-into the space of the context in the situation. Deviant Dziga Vertov theorized on montage, on intervals and editing as the essence of cinema. Vertov tells us what one needs to know about the intervals, about vibration, about mvmt and the cinema and montage and the universe of cinematic mvmt. Indeed, Vertov’s concepts regarding montage, some of the earliest foolery of cinematic deviancy, becomes more related to our montage than divergent. Speak Vertov!
The School of Kino-Eye requires that the cine-thing become built by intervals, upon mvmt between the pieces of the frames; upon the proportions of these pieces between themselves, upon the transitions from one visual impulse to the next. The interval, the spectacular interval, this becomes the relations between pieces. The auteur must take into consideration, between two adjoining images, the spectacular value of each distinct image in relations to all others in the montage-battle that begins. To find the most convenient itinerary for the eyes of the spectator in the midst of all these mutual reactions, attractions, and repulsions of images among themselves, to reduce this whole multiplicity of intervals (of movements from one image to the other) to a simple spectacular equation which expresses a whole out-there: to a spectacular formula expressing in the best possible manner the essential theme of the cine-thing, such becomes the most difficult and important task of the author of montage.
Indeed. The spectacle of opsis, of relations amongst images, becomes again the anti-Spectacle. The variation and interaction of montage released from a plotted narrative, variation and interaction that juxtaposes and causes tension and expresses rhythm between shots as framed sets; this becomes the spectacular power of kinopsis. For one, the variation and interaction of images creates interior animism and motion, and as the psyche works to attach comprehension to the varying units of measurement (the shots and images). This action of spectator becomes relational, as the out-there express becomes more than anything the distance of associations spanned in between two images. Here montage slows the process of perception through leaving the viewer to confer the relation between images their meaning. John Baldessari’s Title (1971) ( http://www.ubu.com/film/baldessari_title.html) comes to mind.
In this fixed relational-prspctv kinopsis-image, a group of image filmed from a fixed camera angles rotates and slowly repeats, transitioning from beach views to lonely dogs sitting by stones in a bare studio. The kinopsis-image continues to introduce and repeat images and characters of a cliché film that might have become; it instead deconstructs cliché narratives with a variation of images that become up to the spectator to confer meaning and relevance to. This up-to spectator becomes the opening-into by which the art-image enters the sea of the psyche; here becomes the relation of kinopsis to spectator.
In montage, kinopsis speaks relations. It speaks the relations of planes (small and large; of a shot of a face in a room followed by that of a pyramid in Jarman’s Garden of Luxor), speaks relations of mvmts within shots, speaks relation of lights and shades. These become only a few relations amongst many that may become evident in montage between images; even these alone work powerfully enough to awaken kinopsis’ great power, the power to express an acentered plane of pure mvmt-images. Riding the webs of relations made visible by spectacular intervals between moving images (frames and shots), kinopsis works non-conceptually, beneath perception and words, beneath the Pcs.Ego of the spectator, to recreate the acentered (unembodied and unframed) plane of mvmt images which becomes this universe of vaporous Becoming-Relations.
Human sight becomes centered, relative, mostly immobile, with defined boundaries (horizons) and narrowly spanned distances. Upon dawning the cliché-prspctv the spectator’s sight becomes all the more particular, relative, for the Spectacle preaches separation, immediacy, and a complacency which calls mass herdishness individuality, and these all corrode sight of the vapor of Relationality. Kinopsis may refuse this centered sight, this defined and solid sight more definable by what it lacks than what it shows.
No correlation in the prspctv-prspctv, huh Brainthink? No mobility, no room for original and new motion and action. This must not become the universal sight. The montagistic perspective, which becomes the image-perspective of the kinopsis-image, may become categorized along the range of impersonal-personal-universal, where personal must become the emblem of natural human perception, impersonal the false objectivity of cliché cinematic art-images, and universal an appeal to the acentered universe of motion and Becoming-Relations.
To see X-Men, one sees the impersonal eye of the cliché cinematic art-image. Editing techniques, directing and acting techniques, screenwriting and cinematography techniques, all of old, all used in X-Men unabashedly; indeed, used sloppily and with no complexity of character. But it became a three-quel, says Brainthink. Nobody expects those to become executed well. Indeed.
What X-men says of the cliché image-perspective becomes the false objectivity of a camera which alternates perspectives between on the action as present ghost- the sutured passive spectator— and within the perspective of a looking or reflecting character- protagonist. The spectator becomes situated as a seated body that becomes presented slightly varying views onto simultaneous spacetime within simultaneous spacetime. Here becomes match cutting on action, parallel editing, 180-degree rules, presentation of continuous and non-problematic temporality and 24 frames per second. This becomes the style-less style of the cliché-perspective, able to remain open in shifts in techniques discovered by the avant-garde Deviants, yet maintain the core of century old social structures, and decade old cinematic formal structures. The impersonal montagistic-prspctv offers a comfortable, affirmative, and cliché (for the symbols it utilizes most have become old by the time these industries adopt said practice, after it has become less shocking and alternative) perspective onto the World; it becomes the logical form for the voice of the Spectacle.
The personal image-perspective rather becomes an embodied perspective. The embodied perspective may become the mediate sight of an on-screen character, that of a non-diegetic character/narrator, or that of the editor or auteur. In Frank Zwartsej’s Spectator (1970) ( Watch at http://www.ubu.com/film/zwartjes_spectator.html) the image-perspective escapes the impersonal-prspctv portrayal of POV by the quality and quantity of images seen through the eyes of the photographer. In the black and white short, a male photographer takes pictures of a slender female model in a tight and dimly light bare space. This becomes the cliché plot of rape with the camera-lens at this spacetime, but in 1970, this no doubt became avant-garde.
The camera-ego, the personal brain behind the visibility of the kinopsis, becomes that of the photographer, such that when the lens gazes on the model, we see not only through the lens of the camera filming, not only through the lens of the camera snapping, but also through the lens of the character himself. A POV shot of Wolverine in X-Men palls in comparison to the intimacy of the spectator with the character in whose eyes we see in Spectator. When the model looks at we the spectator, we see her through his eyes, his aggressive, longing eyes, and the shadows beneath her eyes play witness to the abuse.
The personal perspective may also become that of a character off-screen. In Chris Marker’s Sans Soleil (1983), footage shot by a fictional character, perhaps on 16mm film, becomes linked together by the voice of a narrator reading letters written by the filming character during his travels. The spectator begins to see this mix of images of locales throughout the world through the eyes of this poetic amateur auteur; one’s suspicion that this character becomes no other than the auteur himself must become warranted. The character’s name becomes the pseudonym Marker goes by.
In Sans Soleil, the non-diegetic personal image-perspective meets the auteur personal image-prspctv. Purely auteur personal image-prspctvs become the films of Stan Brakhage, such as Window, Water, Moving Baby (1958), the first birth scene shown in public. Brakhage documents his wife’s at home birth. She lays in the tub, light enters from an opened window, water drips done her belly, affection shots of her in joy, of her in pain, of her in labor; these images Brakhage swirls in flowing then fluxing rhythm, arriving at the end of the duration to his personal vision of the birth of his first child.
The relational montagistic-prspctv refuses to confine itself to false objectivities, or particular embodied perspectives; the relational kinopsis image-prspctv (relational-prspctv) becomes the through-which the sensations of the kinopsis open-into the psyche of the spectator, whereby the event of spectating becomes itself the image-prspctv of the duration. This becomes the perspective of in-flux images, the perspective without story and narration, the perspective without center and frames, the boundless prspctv that spans universal distances, and opens-into a World in which only the isolated and grouped spectator may confer sensations with perceived meanings.
Barton’s Fortitude becomes evidently applicable. There becomes no human or impersonal image-center, camera-ego, image-perspective; there becomes only mvmt, sensations open for association and interpretation, yet operating beneath words and perception. If an embodied perspective the relational perspective connotes, it becomes that of the kinopsis-image itself in its total duration. Intestinal Fortitude becomes its own Cs. Its own ego, its own system of composition and representation. This perspective becomes most unnatural for most relational, most artificial for most transformative of Brainthink’s default perspective and perception.
It becomes the mobility of this the relational-prspctvs centers and the variability of its framings which lead it to restore the intervals to matter. This moving, shifting perspective, in layers, in rhythm, in relation to the spectator, in relation to each frame and image, in relation to time, this relational-prspctv of kinopsis, evident in Fortitude, in Reinvente, in Fiction of Customs (watch at kjrucks.com), this becomes the revelation of Relationality in visibility, in kinopsis art-events.
And what of the situation? How might kinopsis become a situation? For one, as optical, kinesthetic, and relational-prspctv as Intestinal Fortitude and L’Amour Reinvente become as kinopsis-images, they become only events, art-images which call out for the interpretation and participation of the spectator. The meaning or story of Fortitude becomes what the spectator decides it becomes, rather what the psyche decides it becomes. This must become contrasted to X-Men, where the meaning and story become dictated to a passive spectator. Further the event must become contrasted to the situation, which goes beyond speaking its relation to the spectator through the image-prspctv onto the World of the kinopsis, and invades the spectator’s psyche and milieu, such that the art-image attempts to transform the context of the art-event, the spectator-sensing-art-image, and the spectacle of the Spectacular World.
On February 17, 2009, I, King Rucks, performed the first Situakinopsis Event at the Jerry Labowitz Theatre on the NYU campus. My kinopsis piece Fiction of Customs played the part of the kinopsis, and my simultaneous performance, poetic and improvised spoken word, played the part of the situation. By introducing the piece and myself and asking the spectators to participate with their interpretation, I, King Rucks, created an event. Then, by improvising a performance directed by the sensations within the kinopsis, with words I imagined would express or satirize what Brainthink was becoming to imag-ine, I, King Rucks, created a situation, and the world of the Labowitz Theatre became the spectacle, the opsis, of The Fiction of Customs. When the world of the context, any set-locale within the larger set of the Spectacular World, becomes the world of the kinopsis art-image through situational performances, and invisible performances especially, then one encounters a Situakinopsis Event.
Yet this event did not go nearly far enough. For one, the spectators were only participates in isolation and alienation; laughs, chit-chatting, but this can not be becoming the transformation of the spectator into the spect-actor. Myself feels that this event did indeed become situational, yet more is becoming necessary to land it squarely into the pantheon of Situakinopsis. Next time, myself shall hand the microphone to others in the crowd, and let them improvise, let them express the concepts which come into and out of existence during the event of the situation of the kinopsis. From there they will give it to someone else, and so on; this would have become more situational.
And still, this event replicated the traditional interaction of the spectator and the art-image; the lights were dimmed, spectators hushed, the screen brightens and the show begins. In such a context, it becomes difficult for any event to become situational, even the events of the Relationalist Deviant. Next time, I will ask the lights be keep up, that spectators remain standing and even walk around, and I will run the isle so that the show escapes the fourth wall. Better, I, King Rucks, will have the film projected over the walls of the theater, so that the spectator has to look around, take action, to witness the event. Better still, avoiding theaters all together, and putting on Situakinopsis events where they should be, in the Spectacular World (unannounced in public spaces); this becomes the first and most preferred option of the Relationalist Deviant. At my last Situakinopsis Event using the Fiction of Customs, I gave the DVD and the script for performing to a teenager that appreciated the show; I can only hope that he performs better situations with the material, for I must move on to other situations, other Situakinopsis Events.
And thus this tale ends. You, reader, must make the poetry of Situakinopsis Events; I, King Rucks, have become weary of the game of wordplay which is becoming art-philosophy. This journey was indeed fun, and not a few seemingly original concepts became evident. Those concepts you consider cliché, erase with a black marker; those that you find conventional, scratch through with a pen or pencil. Keep only those that have added value to your endeavors, Deviant, Fool, Madman, Quack, and Relationalist. I, King Rucks, have retired from the game of linguistic concepts and investigations for the moment, satisfied as only as Master can become. But this satisfaction smells of poverty!
To the streets, Relationalists! To the game of Situakinopsis Events! Wait no longer; become that lightening of mystical perspectives that progress this Spectacular world. Become those fools of Deviancy, those deviants of Foolery, those invisible actors, those auteur-prophets that bow to the perspective of motion, of becoming, of action, of relations, of rhythmic-chaos, of Becoming, and Relationality. Become that crack of light which fills the empty night sky of this Globalized Spectacular world. Become that, and become no more Relationalists; for that is becoming more than enough to fill Brainthink with the possibilities for creating and building alternative worlds, alternative built spaces of shared out-there Truth. Become that, for that World of the Kinopsis becomes that world in which our relatedness to each other, to our ids and sensations, to our ideals and our lived experience, to our history and our future, to our labor and action whether alienated or relational, to our perspectives whether cliché or relational, in which these become as obvious as Job, the outlined man in Colin Barton’s Intestinal Fortitude; but just as Job, even these outlines of relations become in attendance for only an interval in the wave of this universe of Becoming-Relations. So become visible Relationalists and Relationality, become visible in the public spaces and theaters of this Spectacular World, yet weep not to full back into obscurity when the wave moves on.
Opsis becomes the means of the transmission of mvmt-images from and through the situakinoptical art-image in the art-event. Mise-en-scene in the cinema and in theatre can refer to everything that occurs before the camera and on stage and their arrangement; that means everything, every inch of the frame, every actor, every prop, every location. The mise-en-scene of cinema, opsis, becomes the Spectacle of cinema itself; the perspective on the whole which every image separately and cumulatively works to create.
With opsis, and uniquely it in comparison to other visual mediums, the World itself may become art-image, and not just the art-image becoming a world to express the World and Earth. Opsis becomes the correlative to the cinematic universe of mvmt-images; just as the vapor of the Becoming-Relations becomes a pure duration of mvmt-images, artificially closed sets of movement, action, and interaction of matter, which become relatively and absolutely related to larger sets from centered perspectives in spacetime, so does the cinema as alternative art-image become sets (frames, shots) of a set of mvmt-images in a definite duration. The mechanical reproduction of the shared World, with a machine eye more powerful and analytical than the human eye, grants opsis its emblematic Worldview (view onto world, opsis onto World) crafting potentiality, grants opsis what Deviant Maya Deren called its authority. Only such a power of Worldview access and alteration can battle the World of the Spectacle with any significant force in this milieu.
When opsis becomes situakinoptical, when it becomes an alternative art-image used in a situation, properly in-flux and kinesthetic, and addressed to the eye and visual sensation, it becomes a Situakinopsis Event; here opsis, the spectacle of cinema, becomes the reconstruction of the spectacle of the Spectacular World into the spectacle of the Progressive World (on the range Spectacular-Conventional-Progressive in regards to the quantity of clichés a Worlds uses or does not). How becomes cinema optical? Brain-think and Fool shout that cinema always becomes optical, for we watch it. Far too many foolish deviants, such as auteur Germaine Dulac (1882-1942), have other things to say.
Dulac, auteur one of the earliest dream Surrealist kinopsis pieces, The Seashell and the Clergyman (1926) ( Available to watch at http://www.ubu.com/film/dulac_coquille.html), was concerned that cinema, though a uniquely visual art, did not seek its emotion in the pure optic sense; cinema was, and still is, becoming far too literary. This becomes the affirmative and conventional (rather than progressive) cinematic art-image, the spectacle of the Spectacular world for the entertainment of Brain-think in Prspctv-prspctv. Here one finds facts and not events and situations, story instead of sensation and translation, solids instead of liquid and vapor; here becomes the difference between X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Colin Barton’s Intestinal Fortitude.
In the latter film, the image-perspective addresses the feelings and intelligence, the perception and comprehension of the spectator, by harmonies, chords, shadow, light, rhythm, mvmt, force, and chaos. Whereas X-Men- as an Affirmative art-image of facts- attempts to tell plot driven narratives and stories of solid persons and easily recognizable things and easily understandable casual action, Intestinal Fortitude- as an art-event- becomes an optical event, that draws upon chaos, tension, and translation to create a set of vapor that becomes up to the mind’s eye and the eye’s mind (rather than the Ego) of the spectator to comprehend and perceive what meaning and out-there it shall. The visual image swims the psyche in depths which the words and language of the ego do not; images may suggest thousands of thoughts and words, and optical art-images prefer these any day to cliché dialogue in cliché narratives with affirmative and conventional aesthetic styles.
Dulac, in 1928, thought that cinema had become anti-visual, and that a great reform was needed. Speak Dulac! The future belongs to the film that cannot be told. The seventh art, that of the screen, becomes depth rendered perceptible, the depth that lies beneath the surface of stories; it becomes the musical ungraspable. The more we get rid of the plot to go in the direction of visual cinema, the more we will work for the seventh art. Indeed. More than any element, the literary stories and the plots of cliché cinematic art-images destroy the visuality of cinema; attention becomes more addressed to the what of linguistic solids (what’s happening in the narrative) than to the how of vapor (how does this affect one). The first delimitation of kinopsis art-images becomes that they address themselves not to a narrative but to a unified optical sensation and an image of various translations of the relative affection of the spectators.
What of the in-flux and kinesthesia, how may cinema participate in this luxury? Barton’s kinopsis seems the flux-image par excellence. Every image becomes what it is not, every image transforms, every image moves. Indeed, it seems difficult to even imagine a kinopsis art-image more gorgeously in-flux than Intestinal Fortitude, difficult to imagine an art-image in which forms become rendered more vaporously. The hundred second piece speaks of the flux more than prosaic words ever could. All motion, all juxtaposition of images, different layers by way of superimposition and manually manipulating the film, all rhythmic-chaos and optical poetry.
Contrast Intestinal Fortitude to X-Men, wherein which frames and shots become static, the motion in between images by way of transition is becoming guided and simple, and the rhythm of cutting only increases on action that becomes edited to appear as-if-is happening in the same time. Frames are fixed, rather than flowing, in-flux, living-images and figurals, as in Fortitude. In X-Men, things become solid, rather than vaporous, and express story rather than the translation and transformation of mvmt, pcpt, affection, and action-images in the intervals of framed spacetime.
This becomes motion, this becomes kinesthesia and the tension of translation expressed. A less extreme version of the cinematic flux-image has become Maurice Lemaitre’s L’Amour Reinvente (1979) (http://ubu.com/film/lemaitre_amour.html). Once again, every frame moves, every image vibrates with aesthetic transformation; there are no solid, cliché, after-image forms in the vapor of the flux-image, as every image pulsates with difference, change, transformation, and mvmt. Both Fortitude and L’Amour Reinvente reveal all that has been said and needs to be said of Flux-images. These become contrasted to a fixed art-image which nevertheless becomes kinoptical, a fixed kinoptical art image; Chris Marker’s La Jetee (1962). Here still (freeze framed) cinematogrammes, only a few actually shot on still camera, become edited in such a manner that even these vibrate motion. Marker also subtly brings back in motion in some of the later shots, as when the love interest lies in bed. Editing can make even still and fixed opsis-images kinoptical.
Throughout fixed-flow-flux cinematic images, the through line of montagistic formation continues. Montage becomes pivotal to kinesthesia in kinopsis, to the image-perspective of kinopsis art-images; montage becomes the perspective of the kinopsis piece, the perspective the piece attempts to share in interpreting in the event, and attempts to open-into the space of the context in the situation. Deviant Dziga Vertov theorized on montage, on intervals and editing as the essence of cinema. Vertov tells us what one needs to know about the intervals, about vibration, about mvmt and the cinema and montage and the universe of cinematic mvmt. Indeed, Vertov’s concepts regarding montage, some of the earliest foolery of cinematic deviancy, becomes more related to our montage than divergent. Speak Vertov!
The School of Kino-Eye requires that the cine-thing become built by intervals, upon mvmt between the pieces of the frames; upon the proportions of these pieces between themselves, upon the transitions from one visual impulse to the next. The interval, the spectacular interval, this becomes the relations between pieces. The auteur must take into consideration, between two adjoining images, the spectacular value of each distinct image in relations to all others in the montage-battle that begins. To find the most convenient itinerary for the eyes of the spectator in the midst of all these mutual reactions, attractions, and repulsions of images among themselves, to reduce this whole multiplicity of intervals (of movements from one image to the other) to a simple spectacular equation which expresses a whole out-there: to a spectacular formula expressing in the best possible manner the essential theme of the cine-thing, such becomes the most difficult and important task of the author of montage.
Indeed. The spectacle of opsis, of relations amongst images, becomes again the anti-Spectacle. The variation and interaction of montage released from a plotted narrative, variation and interaction that juxtaposes and causes tension and expresses rhythm between shots as framed sets; this becomes the spectacular power of kinopsis. For one, the variation and interaction of images creates interior animism and motion, and as the psyche works to attach comprehension to the varying units of measurement (the shots and images). This action of spectator becomes relational, as the out-there express becomes more than anything the distance of associations spanned in between two images. Here montage slows the process of perception through leaving the viewer to confer the relation between images their meaning. John Baldessari’s Title (1971) ( http://www.ubu.com/film/baldessari_title.html) comes to mind.
In this fixed relational-prspctv kinopsis-image, a group of image filmed from a fixed camera angles rotates and slowly repeats, transitioning from beach views to lonely dogs sitting by stones in a bare studio. The kinopsis-image continues to introduce and repeat images and characters of a cliché film that might have become; it instead deconstructs cliché narratives with a variation of images that become up to the spectator to confer meaning and relevance to. This up-to spectator becomes the opening-into by which the art-image enters the sea of the psyche; here becomes the relation of kinopsis to spectator.
In montage, kinopsis speaks relations. It speaks the relations of planes (small and large; of a shot of a face in a room followed by that of a pyramid in Jarman’s Garden of Luxor), speaks relations of mvmts within shots, speaks relation of lights and shades. These become only a few relations amongst many that may become evident in montage between images; even these alone work powerfully enough to awaken kinopsis’ great power, the power to express an acentered plane of pure mvmt-images. Riding the webs of relations made visible by spectacular intervals between moving images (frames and shots), kinopsis works non-conceptually, beneath perception and words, beneath the Pcs.Ego of the spectator, to recreate the acentered (unembodied and unframed) plane of mvmt images which becomes this universe of vaporous Becoming-Relations.
Human sight becomes centered, relative, mostly immobile, with defined boundaries (horizons) and narrowly spanned distances. Upon dawning the cliché-prspctv the spectator’s sight becomes all the more particular, relative, for the Spectacle preaches separation, immediacy, and a complacency which calls mass herdishness individuality, and these all corrode sight of the vapor of Relationality. Kinopsis may refuse this centered sight, this defined and solid sight more definable by what it lacks than what it shows.
No correlation in the prspctv-prspctv, huh Brainthink? No mobility, no room for original and new motion and action. This must not become the universal sight. The montagistic perspective, which becomes the image-perspective of the kinopsis-image, may become categorized along the range of impersonal-personal-universal, where personal must become the emblem of natural human perception, impersonal the false objectivity of cliché cinematic art-images, and universal an appeal to the acentered universe of motion and Becoming-Relations.
To see X-Men, one sees the impersonal eye of the cliché cinematic art-image. Editing techniques, directing and acting techniques, screenwriting and cinematography techniques, all of old, all used in X-Men unabashedly; indeed, used sloppily and with no complexity of character. But it became a three-quel, says Brainthink. Nobody expects those to become executed well. Indeed.
What X-men says of the cliché image-perspective becomes the false objectivity of a camera which alternates perspectives between on the action as present ghost- the sutured passive spectator— and within the perspective of a looking or reflecting character- protagonist. The spectator becomes situated as a seated body that becomes presented slightly varying views onto simultaneous spacetime within simultaneous spacetime. Here becomes match cutting on action, parallel editing, 180-degree rules, presentation of continuous and non-problematic temporality and 24 frames per second. This becomes the style-less style of the cliché-perspective, able to remain open in shifts in techniques discovered by the avant-garde Deviants, yet maintain the core of century old social structures, and decade old cinematic formal structures. The impersonal montagistic-prspctv offers a comfortable, affirmative, and cliché (for the symbols it utilizes most have become old by the time these industries adopt said practice, after it has become less shocking and alternative) perspective onto the World; it becomes the logical form for the voice of the Spectacle.
The personal image-perspective rather becomes an embodied perspective. The embodied perspective may become the mediate sight of an on-screen character, that of a non-diegetic character/narrator, or that of the editor or auteur. In Frank Zwartsej’s Spectator (1970) ( Watch at http://www.ubu.com/film/zwartjes_spectator.html) the image-perspective escapes the impersonal-prspctv portrayal of POV by the quality and quantity of images seen through the eyes of the photographer. In the black and white short, a male photographer takes pictures of a slender female model in a tight and dimly light bare space. This becomes the cliché plot of rape with the camera-lens at this spacetime, but in 1970, this no doubt became avant-garde.
The camera-ego, the personal brain behind the visibility of the kinopsis, becomes that of the photographer, such that when the lens gazes on the model, we see not only through the lens of the camera filming, not only through the lens of the camera snapping, but also through the lens of the character himself. A POV shot of Wolverine in X-Men palls in comparison to the intimacy of the spectator with the character in whose eyes we see in Spectator. When the model looks at we the spectator, we see her through his eyes, his aggressive, longing eyes, and the shadows beneath her eyes play witness to the abuse.
The personal perspective may also become that of a character off-screen. In Chris Marker’s Sans Soleil (1983), footage shot by a fictional character, perhaps on 16mm film, becomes linked together by the voice of a narrator reading letters written by the filming character during his travels. The spectator begins to see this mix of images of locales throughout the world through the eyes of this poetic amateur auteur; one’s suspicion that this character becomes no other than the auteur himself must become warranted. The character’s name becomes the pseudonym Marker goes by.
In Sans Soleil, the non-diegetic personal image-perspective meets the auteur personal image-prspctv. Purely auteur personal image-prspctvs become the films of Stan Brakhage, such as Window, Water, Moving Baby (1958), the first birth scene shown in public. Brakhage documents his wife’s at home birth. She lays in the tub, light enters from an opened window, water drips done her belly, affection shots of her in joy, of her in pain, of her in labor; these images Brakhage swirls in flowing then fluxing rhythm, arriving at the end of the duration to his personal vision of the birth of his first child.
The relational montagistic-prspctv refuses to confine itself to false objectivities, or particular embodied perspectives; the relational kinopsis image-prspctv (relational-prspctv) becomes the through-which the sensations of the kinopsis open-into the psyche of the spectator, whereby the event of spectating becomes itself the image-prspctv of the duration. This becomes the perspective of in-flux images, the perspective without story and narration, the perspective without center and frames, the boundless prspctv that spans universal distances, and opens-into a World in which only the isolated and grouped spectator may confer sensations with perceived meanings.
Barton’s Fortitude becomes evidently applicable. There becomes no human or impersonal image-center, camera-ego, image-perspective; there becomes only mvmt, sensations open for association and interpretation, yet operating beneath words and perception. If an embodied perspective the relational perspective connotes, it becomes that of the kinopsis-image itself in its total duration. Intestinal Fortitude becomes its own Cs. Its own ego, its own system of composition and representation. This perspective becomes most unnatural for most relational, most artificial for most transformative of Brainthink’s default perspective and perception.
It becomes the mobility of this the relational-prspctvs centers and the variability of its framings which lead it to restore the intervals to matter. This moving, shifting perspective, in layers, in rhythm, in relation to the spectator, in relation to each frame and image, in relation to time, this relational-prspctv of kinopsis, evident in Fortitude, in Reinvente, in Fiction of Customs (watch at kjrucks.com), this becomes the revelation of Relationality in visibility, in kinopsis art-events.
And what of the situation? How might kinopsis become a situation? For one, as optical, kinesthetic, and relational-prspctv as Intestinal Fortitude and L’Amour Reinvente become as kinopsis-images, they become only events, art-images which call out for the interpretation and participation of the spectator. The meaning or story of Fortitude becomes what the spectator decides it becomes, rather what the psyche decides it becomes. This must become contrasted to X-Men, where the meaning and story become dictated to a passive spectator. Further the event must become contrasted to the situation, which goes beyond speaking its relation to the spectator through the image-prspctv onto the World of the kinopsis, and invades the spectator’s psyche and milieu, such that the art-image attempts to transform the context of the art-event, the spectator-sensing-art-image, and the spectacle of the Spectacular World.
On February 17, 2009, I, King Rucks, performed the first Situakinopsis Event at the Jerry Labowitz Theatre on the NYU campus. My kinopsis piece Fiction of Customs played the part of the kinopsis, and my simultaneous performance, poetic and improvised spoken word, played the part of the situation. By introducing the piece and myself and asking the spectators to participate with their interpretation, I, King Rucks, created an event. Then, by improvising a performance directed by the sensations within the kinopsis, with words I imagined would express or satirize what Brainthink was becoming to imag-ine, I, King Rucks, created a situation, and the world of the Labowitz Theatre became the spectacle, the opsis, of The Fiction of Customs. When the world of the context, any set-locale within the larger set of the Spectacular World, becomes the world of the kinopsis art-image through situational performances, and invisible performances especially, then one encounters a Situakinopsis Event.
Yet this event did not go nearly far enough. For one, the spectators were only participates in isolation and alienation; laughs, chit-chatting, but this can not be becoming the transformation of the spectator into the spect-actor. Myself feels that this event did indeed become situational, yet more is becoming necessary to land it squarely into the pantheon of Situakinopsis. Next time, myself shall hand the microphone to others in the crowd, and let them improvise, let them express the concepts which come into and out of existence during the event of the situation of the kinopsis. From there they will give it to someone else, and so on; this would have become more situational.
And still, this event replicated the traditional interaction of the spectator and the art-image; the lights were dimmed, spectators hushed, the screen brightens and the show begins. In such a context, it becomes difficult for any event to become situational, even the events of the Relationalist Deviant. Next time, I will ask the lights be keep up, that spectators remain standing and even walk around, and I will run the isle so that the show escapes the fourth wall. Better, I, King Rucks, will have the film projected over the walls of the theater, so that the spectator has to look around, take action, to witness the event. Better still, avoiding theaters all together, and putting on Situakinopsis events where they should be, in the Spectacular World (unannounced in public spaces); this becomes the first and most preferred option of the Relationalist Deviant. At my last Situakinopsis Event using the Fiction of Customs, I gave the DVD and the script for performing to a teenager that appreciated the show; I can only hope that he performs better situations with the material, for I must move on to other situations, other Situakinopsis Events.
*********************************************************
And thus this tale ends. You, reader, must make the poetry of Situakinopsis Events; I, King Rucks, have become weary of the game of wordplay which is becoming art-philosophy. This journey was indeed fun, and not a few seemingly original concepts became evident. Those concepts you consider cliché, erase with a black marker; those that you find conventional, scratch through with a pen or pencil. Keep only those that have added value to your endeavors, Deviant, Fool, Madman, Quack, and Relationalist. I, King Rucks, have retired from the game of linguistic concepts and investigations for the moment, satisfied as only as Master can become. But this satisfaction smells of poverty!
To the streets, Relationalists! To the game of Situakinopsis Events! Wait no longer; become that lightening of mystical perspectives that progress this Spectacular world. Become those fools of Deviancy, those deviants of Foolery, those invisible actors, those auteur-prophets that bow to the perspective of motion, of becoming, of action, of relations, of rhythmic-chaos, of Becoming, and Relationality. Become that crack of light which fills the empty night sky of this Globalized Spectacular world. Become that, and become no more Relationalists; for that is becoming more than enough to fill Brainthink with the possibilities for creating and building alternative worlds, alternative built spaces of shared out-there Truth. Become that, for that World of the Kinopsis becomes that world in which our relatedness to each other, to our ids and sensations, to our ideals and our lived experience, to our history and our future, to our labor and action whether alienated or relational, to our perspectives whether cliché or relational, in which these become as obvious as Job, the outlined man in Colin Barton’s Intestinal Fortitude; but just as Job, even these outlines of relations become in attendance for only an interval in the wave of this universe of Becoming-Relations. So become visible Relationalists and Relationality, become visible in the public spaces and theaters of this Spectacular World, yet weep not to full back into obscurity when the wave moves on.
