@sexyajax: I see you're upset because I pointed out in parentheses and without significance an apostrophe instead of an accent (since you felt the need to emphasize it four times) so I'll avoid commenting on the form, which speaks for itself, and simply try to respond to what you've written in these last four comments. Why would I do "anything to criticize and at the same time promote myself"? Promote myself where, and to whom? The other DeBaser users? And to obtain what? I would be curious to know, if possible. Then: "deny the poetics of the eye"... where? Have I denied (that is, forcefully demonstrated my opposition and outright rejected) that Surrealism had this interest in vision and trans-vision? It doesn’t seem so. Rather, I wrote, in response to your observation that the center of Surrealist cinematic aesthetics is the eye, that "perhaps the core of the issue was another," referring to dreams, the unconscious, and the interiority that manifests itself with the symbolic image of the eye that sees through. I did not deny your thesis, but I shifted it, slightly correcting the aim: the core is the dream, while the way to see it is through the eye. No denial, in short. Then: "you accuse me [...] of copying"... well, other users have linked or cited the sources that you copied/pasted, so evidently you did, it's very simple. Again: “[I do] vol[p]indaric flights and digressions on history like a summary”; um, what do you mean? What airy flights that deviate or even overturn the discussion have I made? It seems to me I simply corrected your errors, not opinions, for heaven's sake, but the errors. Am I a little teacher and summary-like? Well, however you prefer, but the errors you made were blatant. Let me explain better: you say "IN THIS MASS FILOBERLUSCONIAN SOCIETY [but what does it matter?] YOU BRING ME AS THE FIRST AVANT-GARDE FUTURISM; BUT why???", see, when I say that Futurism was the first avant-garde, it is an objective fact since an "avant-garde" is a group of artists organized under a programmatic manifesto, and the first group of artists to organize under a programmatic manifesto were the Futurists in 1909. The Impressionists, for example, were indeed a group of artists, but they did not have a manifesto and thus were not an avant-garde, while the Dadaists were an avant-garde because they had a manifesto. The manifesto is the distinguishing factor, in short, not being a group ahead of others: the abstract artists, for example, were very advanced compared to their contemporaries, but they were not an avant-garde because they did not have a manifesto. Now, the first group to adopt a manifesto were the Futurists, and therefore they are objectively the first avant-garde. This does not mean I love them, nor that I consider them superior to others, nor that I share their principles, nor that I admire their aftermath, nor anything else: I only said they were the first and thus important since they were foundational, then underlining their real relationship with Fascism which is often wrongly misunderstood, as you demonstrate yourself in comment
#4. Again: “[I think that you] ignore Balla and Boccioni,” when did I say that? I wrote that when you see them live you can’t help but admire their high technical quality (not limited to just "The Funerals of the Anarchist Galli"), I did not say you do not know them. About Futurist cinema: don’t you think there can be analogies with the theatre of art, a legacy that Italy has carried for centuries? Even today, De Sica and Boldi make the current version of the theatre of art, it’s a shame that it has become completely miserable and sterile because it lacks the anarchic, rebellious, and mocking character it had in the 1700s. Comment
#12 is 95% agreeable,
#14 is pure stream of consciousness that I didn't understand how it relates to what we are discussing. I hope I have been very clear and not presumptuous.
