>"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 >