DELEUZE

Deleuze’s ideas were more difficult for me to grasp this week, however what I did really start thinking about was whether or not I would contend his perception that the frame is either the geometrical or the physical. If I have the right idea in mind here, I would think that a frame of a person’s eyes in an extreme close up, straight on is a physical representation. Perhaps anything from a straight on angle close up could be considered a physical representation? Whereas, taking an image from a lower or high angle alters this perception away from what it may look like physically. However this idea of ‘physical’ – is it based on my idea of dimensions and accurate spatiality? There is a lot that you can manipulate within the frame, and also a lot that you can present as is (to an extent). However even with taking a photo of eyes, that is still geometrical – the oval shape of the eyes for instance – but there isn’t the illusion of space or the third dimension.

The ‘out of field’ concept, although quite vague to me, is also interesting. I suppose some of it could relate to semiotics – there can be more to the frame, purposefully representing different meanings and the connotation of different ideas. However this also concerns emotions that are inferred or that which we perceive… Deleuze is interesting and confusing, but will help me with my understanding of the frame the more I think about these ideas.

References

Gilles Deleuze, ‘Frame and shot’, Cinema 1: The Movement-Image (2005), Continuum.