Dropping by to say hi! This note is intended to be short, just a run down on what happened to me these past few weeks of the year and some updates on my research on Lav Diaz:
- At last, after two and half years, I’m done with my coursework for MA Media Studies (Film) last December 2016.
I am currently awaiting for the decision of the Graduate Studies Department of UP CM if whether I am indeed qualified to take the dreaded MA Candidacy Exam this coming February 2017. Wish me luck!
- UPDATE: MA MS (Film) Comprehensives exam will be on February 11! Shiet! I got 25 books and 10 films to speed read and speed watch in less than a month. I’ll be charting my progress here, so stay tune. Hope I can put some of my digests on chapters/essays here. Wish me luck for the compre exams.
- Also, after being unemployed for two years, I already landed a job last August 2016. So there.
- As for my research on Lav Diaz, I’m currently doing a historical study of Diaz in relation to technology and the political economic history of Philippine cinema, following the framework of cultural materialism/techno-criticism. It’ll be a baseline study wherein I can finally look into Lav Diaz beyond his aesthetics and content and dwell on the necessary historical problems that haunt his cinema. One of the main questions that I want to problematize in this study is what were the technological and socio-economic conditions what led to the emergence of Diaz’s long form style.
- Will try to draft something for DLSU’s 8th KRITIKA: National Workshop on Art and Cultural Criticism 2017 due tomorrow, Jan 15 and KRITIKA KULTURA CRITICISM WORKSHOP due on March 15. I already have ready-made unpublished essays. I just have to refine them. Hopefully, I will not be too distracted tomorrow.
Let’s rock on for 2017! Goals for 2017: more publications, more conference, more blogpost, more papers!
Borgesian library-Google Data Bank. (from here)
1. Each text is a construct: a reduction of thoughts’ pluripotentials into a well-arranged, grammatically sound signifying system. 2. To arrange a text is to intervene in thought itself. 3. Hence, the arrangement of the texts in a hypertextual environment is a political act: a will to power is involved. 4. In this day and age of informational catastrophe, the author is self-aware of this text’s complicity with the politics of the digital. 5. This act of hypertextual writing is preconditioned by another construct: an assumption that there exist an anonymous individual X who will read the excess ‘i’ in the text’s title and wonder if it is something that the author of the text intends to typogrify.
Anti-Auteur. I am currently developing a polemical piece that seeks to critically ‘deconstruct’ the tenets of auteurism tentatively entitled ‘Parricide to the Auteur’. The seed idea came from my reading of Jacques Derrida’s book Of Hospitality where I encountered the radical word ‘parricide’ (a passage of which will be provided in a separate text below). Derrida dispenses the radical potential of a Foreigner as parricidal speculum to the paternal logos. We commonly associate the logos to the rule of law, the central structuring force of all knowledge and discursive structures in the history of thought.
This parricide to the paternal logos is very much close to my developing polemic against the celebritification and mythologization of auteur in today’s film industry. In my developing study on Lav Diaz, I outwardly criticize the signifying logos of the auteur as all-encompassing concept to my philosophical investigation of the Diaz’s cinema’s relation to time.
In one of my papers submitted in Advance Film Theory and Criticism class (Film 270) (view here), I proposed a reconfiguration of the author-function as inherently complicit with the passage of time. In a way, I was trying to re-envision Diaz as a continuing process of constitution and deconstitution, an assemblage of significations and many other things beyond his body. That, in the cultural sphere, he no longer exists as One body, but as a continuous being-in-process , a becoming-in-transition. The massive circulation of texts within and outside the stratifying machine of culture, the free play between signifier and signified, and asubjective ruptures surrounding his work, all of which participate in the constitution and deconstitution of his ‘being’, transforming him into a ‘differential immanent object.’ To simply put it, ‘Lav Diaz’ no longer exists as purely as Diaz-in-himself but rather his body becomes reconstituted and mediatized by informational, cultural and socio-political fields.