(L'emergere del possibile & UNZAlab)
--- NOFEST 2017: Non è un pranzo di gala (NOFEST 2017 - Is not a dinner party)
The image: the image is missing.
With too much hustle and excessive envy you tried to cage the cinematic image inside logic and schemes which it resisted in every possible way, and in this same resistance not only the image but affirmed its existence, at the same time, also was vented, these logic cages, of which every time nothing remained but the possibility through which, incessantly, they went to replenish itself, reiterating that their attempt to-present the image. But the image does not show up, it indeed exists to presentification and this exist. The institutionalization of experimental cinema coincides with the institutionalization of the subject institutionalizing, that just in the very act of institutionalization and only through it becomes an institution. The frenzy with which we have tried to cage the film image thus reveals his innermost essence, that hypocrisy of vision that underlies it and founded; the image, once institutionalized, looks, but looks like a mirror, it shows the person making the submission and institutionalizes, revealing it as an institution, and this is mirrored retroagente institution in the image that is to crack the establishment same the establishment, in fact, still holds tight for as long as two gestures in one, the institutionalization of the image by becoming the agent institutionalization of that gesture institutionalizing, but, if you understand how to separate what was originally separate, distinguish, this, the institution - to be - mystifies legally, then here is revealed radical otherness between the image and the institution, otherness which brings the image to exceed the institution and the latter to fade for inefficiency.
The cinematic image is missing, and "see" does not mean fill that gap but let it persist as such. What is present is the institution, and its presence is short of breath, he fills all spaces, suffocating. In the order of immanence cinema, the film image is the possibility of the image, is the possibility that there is, after all, a picture; the film does not create an image, but it is done to be able to admit the possibility of an image, the film itself contains neither holds and to which has exclusive value in return: cinema image you can not have vision but only Faith. The image of immanence film, unlike that of the transcendental cinema, which is only traversed by the institution, passes through in turn the institution and, crossing it, is made through it: is the time in which the image you through the university that s'incrina institution on the surface of the image, which, then, is revealed as a Otherwise institution. The image r \exists the institution. Crossing it, the image reveals the discrepancy that, on its very surface, can not come about if you come to experience in an authentic way: the definition of experimental film will therefore not attempt to create an image that dodge the institution, a different image, that is pure Otherwise; experience means indeed bring the fight on the field, the same struggle that the institution, by his claim to absolute out its presence, tries in every way to silence and so creates a peace all the more silent the more disturbing: the image film is none other than the field of this struggle.
This new edition of NOFEST assume, from this perspective, specific characteristics which distinguish it clearly from the previous year, what to do with the fire.
NOFEST 2017 - Is not a dinner party wants to be a place that creates space giving way his own place. In this sense, it can not be that a metastable equilibrium in the system, or at least we would like it to be considered as well, to allow what our opinion it is essential for each genuine and authentic vision, is the dimension of the encounter, in which finds portrayed not only the position of the film but also in the spectator. Now, the meeting is of the order of the singularity. The event is not the NOFEST itself but the fact that a matrix-structure can meet glues distributions of internal tensions to the structure-field which the NOFEST as such. We thought about it in three days, to be held c / o the headquarters of UNZA, Milan, the 6th, 7th and 8th April 2017. Here we leave the program:
Thursday April 6, 20:30h
UNZA!, via L. Bianchi d'Espinosa, Milano
- José Miguel Biscaya, #47
- Riccardo Vaia & Cristina Pizzamiglio, Desert light
- Laura Marie Wayne, Most of us don’t live there
- Vincent Grenier, Watercolor (Fall Creek)
- Walter Ungerer, noCOM
- Rebecca Ruige Xu & Sean Hongsheng Zhai, When leaving becomes arriving
- Fabio Scacchioli & Vincenzo Core, Bang Utot
- Ignazio Fabio Mazzola, I II III IIII / *31 12 99 / O / O O
- Siegfried A. Fruhauf, Vintage print
- Robert Todd, Daydreams
Friday April 7, 20:30h
UNZALab, via G.B. Passerini 18, Milano
- Flim Flam Crew, Ludione della lampada
Saturday April 8, 20:30h
DENTRO, via A. Cesari 17, Milano
- Teo Ormond-Skeaping, Orbit æterna
- Enzo Cillo, Ippocampo
- Richard Ashrowan, Speculum
- Laura Kraning, Irradiant field
- Flavia de la fuente, Diario de un corto
- Luca Poma, American spirit
- Dan Browne, Untitled
- Chris H Lynn, Liguria
- Anna Kipervaser, To honor
- Takashi Makino, 2012
- Calum Walter, Experiments in buoyancy
What we have tried to do is to pick the movies that you can form a place that, in its own be, disappear, and we with it. What remains? It remains the viewer's encounter with the film but not with NOFEST, that is, with this cascade of works that, although they may at first appear messy, actually were placed next to each other just to emphasize how they are to succession for internal resonance, and it is this resonance in the event proper, the singularity. Adding to its internal resonance, the viewer participates freely, according to the vibrations which are his. There is not as blatant an order that the film, directing it teleologically: our gesture was to make the film happen, in both senses of the word. In addition, all the short films and the feature film program video, in all its different forms (shot, editing, storage/distribution etc.). The video is a closed machine, which assumes a normal ideal (pixels) where the informations are modulated; the relationship with reality is not what the film, because in the video of the actual material is already read: the efficient cause, a particular piece of reality, does not like the film in the camera, that is imprinted on it and then come to join taking, but more like feedback, assumed the rule of the machine, is modulated depending on the internal rhythms to the car: in the actual video purifies himself, does not exist except as pixels, so as all internal information to the film machine. The cybernetic circuit video as well refer to a pure cinema, because it's purified from the real: the immanence's cinema, in the video, is to be establishing itself, and the viewer who is about you is included in that institution because cinema itself can and in many cases has an institutional power of its own: the selection of the film was conveyed by this single claim, namely, that he would show those, more unique than rare, video works that enunciated its own institutional power of cinema, we tried to preserve the content of the event. But the imagine: the image is missing. His is a ancestral claim, original. However, the image doesn't refer to the origin but it's the origin recall. The origin is unattainable. The origin is Abel who dies under the blows of Cain. That source of all that remains are the tears of the Earth, who still cries his blood: the mark of Cain scored his being a fugitive, his isn't alive in any place on Earth, because the Earth still cries the blood of Abel. Hence, Enoch, a city of craftsmen and technicians, the production that is no longer that of the Earth, art and artifice. What is art? The artifice is not art. The artifice is what is created because it can no longer be taken from Earth. The artifice is what creates a land after land, expanding the original fracture forget it as long as, forgetting the loyalty that Enoch must to Earth, to his shouting the blood of Abel. Conversely, art is that which experiences the gap between Enoch and the Earth: it is the nihilism of the line, not over it, to have that same experience anything that he founded and which is nothing if not the same unattainability origin. Only by experiencing this divide and finding himself in it, and through art rather than craft, you can retrieve the sole reason of belonging to the Earth, which is no longer that of a communion but rather the pathos of radical obedience to the Earth, which already Cain said as marked, that is exposed to the naked man's life. The picture, then, is really the imagine of the Earth: the image is missing, and this lack is the rise of the Earth. The image source is the origin of the Earth, but the Earth still cries the blood of Abel and therefore missing. The call is not a call to the origin, you can not fill the emptiness of the image; the call is rather a call origin, which does not mention it, he does not return to Earth. Answer the call, it does not mean turning the earth but to obey. Cain, marked, says the Same, bare life of man, his radical mortality: this is called obedience, obedience to the Duce says that obedience to the Earth. This obedience can only be historically situated, inconvenient than any nomadism, and not intellectual, and therefore impossible without friends, who are not traveling companions but to each other he says and does pierce the tradition, which is one and unique and to which we can only report of Faith attitude. So, every vision, every experience and artistic fruit requires a sacrifice: it expresses the lack of the image who does not mean abolish as subjects but as subjects stand on the empty below us. The not meaning of life is not to be rejected, but it must be made logical. The cinema of the immanence does not make a sense in the life, but grants him who experiences it authentically with no sense, the void of meaning on which he stands, and that is none other than life itself: listen to the call is suffering the cry of earth, have it right. The terrible thing is that the institution has made the film a craft question, the danger is not that the policy is appropriate to the work of art making if similar, because, if this is successful, it is the death of cinema: the concern stems from the fact that politics, from technical movements, has now become a matter of aesthetics, that the institution has made art, it confuses with the opera . To this and not something else must r \exist, this is the terrain of struggle. The NOFEST 2017 is therefore a "situation" of Pasolini's memory which is in no clemency can not be placed in it, but it is with the viewer's own experience, which brings into play their own eyes, that the NOFEST It is located. The political cinema, essentially transcendental matrix, must give way to a policy of cinema that the film is in itself politically effective and does not suffer, as happened so far the effects of the policy. It is necessary reverse the gesture, making a political film. We are convinced that education is inappropriate to look like any form of education. The film, and especially in its form-video need not be seen, you do not see: the film, in itself, calls for vision, and you have to accept this invitation. Do not learn to see the hope of seeing a new light, new colors, but think you can see "again only for good" because in reality has never seen, or rather, you is not seen nothing but the logical scheme through which it is given to the actual lean out. If a film is an invitation to view, then this is not done by means of the film: it is later in the finished film, the field of the real and the everyday. Here we see and you never stop doing it.The policy that led us to choose these films and not others is the film in the program do not mean anything they give meaning without meaning something. The film do not employ signs but it manifests senses. The sense that the film shows is the meaning given by that who then comes back to life every day. We believe that these works open up a gap, giving the possibility to mean otherwise. This meaning, however, it is not univocal molar, but singular, that depends from the subject, by his experience and by the mode with which he approaches to the waterfall of works. The tradition is therefore the singularity of NOFEST as an event, ie the viewer's encounter with the place-NOFEST, and its necessity is the possibility of sharing of meaning, the power to be here, despite the unspeakable community who run the looks, a true friendship, that is expressed by the individual in his daily signification, which also participates in the unknown distance, whose signification is itself kind of a sense that it was, if only for a moment, in common: one and only way for multiple meanings, because the meeting is still plural, open, its uniqueness is of the order of the opening infinite, the participation and the life are not exclusive, but lonely for if all the other lives and its vibrates in them. Ab integro nascitur ordo.