>"The ideogrammic method has something in common with Eisenstein's
> theory of montage. A succession of images produces something which was not
> present in any individual image."
 
I made this point a few months ago, and it seemed to fall on
dead ears... so it is worth making again... thanks Peter....
this is absolutely true -- these two artists, working independently -
came up with exactly the same theories, applying them to different
mediums. I believe this notion of ideogrammatic method/montage,
i.e.: the juxtaposition of different images to "create" a third
(invisible, unstated) image - a resonance if you like - is the essence
of modernism. It is interesting that my other play about an artist
is about Eisenstein... interestingly enough, I was not led to him
by way of Pound... but by a curious accident one night in a
Sydney bookshop... Thetwo men (and the two plays - Sixteen
Words for Water and Eisenstein in Mexico) are certainly artistic
brothers!
 
Stoneking
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Reavy <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 1999 5:38 AM
Subject: Re: Inquiry
 
 
> On Tue, 23 Nov 1999 17:10:14 -0600 Michael Alleman <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > In the Donald Hall interview for Paris Review (reprinted in Hall's
> > Remembering Poets, p. 225), Pound says:
> >
> > "[...] And now what one has got with the camera is an enormous
> > correlation of particulars.  That capacity for making contact is a
> > tremendous challenge to literature.  It throws up the question of what
needs
> > to be done and what is superfluous."
>
> Apart from the "correlation of particulars", I've sometimes wondered
whether
> there was another similarity between Pound's approach and the theory of
> film-makers. The ideogrammic method has something in common with
Eisenstein's
> theory of montage. A succession of images produces something which was not
> present in any individual image.
>
> Peter
>