shutai vs. shutaisei ?

[jesty at uchicago.edu]

Dear Mathieu,

Now that you mention it _is_ strange how thoroughly Matsumoto
evacuates these parallel discussions from his own writing. I
also see "mono" and "taikyokushugi" as deeply informing his
writing, but you would never know that just by reading the
essays. The primacy of the intentional relationship, and the
attitude of starting from within a specifically located
existence definitely sounds like existentialism, but who knows
who or what exactly.

I think spelling out the relationship between Matsumoto's
ideas and neo-documentarism is important work that has yet to
be done. (As for my paper it's just an "unpublished paper" and
doesn't go very deeply into the issues.)

Take care
Justin


---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:12:09 +0100
>From: Mathieu Capel <mathieucapel at gmail.com>  
>Subject: Re: shutai vs. shutaisei ?  
>To: KineJapan at lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
>
>   Dear all,
>
>   Thank you so much for your answers, which are of
>   great interest to me. Justin, could you give me the
>   refererences of your quotations, so that I can
>   mention it in my PhD thesis and quote your work ? It
>   does seem really fascinating, as for the Matsumoto
>   interview Yû-san refers to. I will try to read as
>   soon as I can, but being stuck in Paris is something
>   really unconvenient for scholars sometines... As for
>   Markus' work, what, believe it or not, I did not
>   know (sorry ! but I shall redeem myself as soon as I
>   can : I saw it is available on the internet... )
>   By the way, I do agree with Markus, and I wouldn't
>   mind reading some japanese when it is about
>   questions as important as the "shutaisei/shutai"
>   debate, and the changes of policy in JCP...
>
>   Actually, I know that Matsumoto's theories did not
>   come out of the blue, and relied on many other
>   works. But I was surprised when reading Eizô no
>   hakken not to find references to Okamoto and Hanada
>   for instance (especially his writings about italian
>   realim), and their attempt to merge/go beyond
>   abstraction and surrealism, their taikyoku shugi and
>   other "mono" considerations (especially when you
>   know how important "mono" is for
>   "neo-documentarism")...
>   That's why I said that (i forgot to add an important
>   "perhaps") those theories "pretended" to be
>   idiosyncratic in the realm of japanese thinkers : it
>   seemed to me that he only quoted former Japanese
>   thinker, writer or cinematographer in order to
>   criticize them, or prefered to deal with categories
>   like marxism, surrealism, etc. instead of naming
>   people... It seemed obvious when draw