application/pdf
2036-461X
16548
35
en
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Cinéma & Cie. Film and Media Studies Journal
International Conference Histories of Tacit Cinematic Knowledge | Frankfurt am Main and worldwide (September 24–26, 2020) Organisers: Rebecca Boguska, Guilherme da Silva Machado, Rebecca Puchta, Marin Reljic and Philipp Röding
Text.Serial.Journal
https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/cinemaetcie
20
Reviews / Comptes rendus
2020-10-01
2021-10-05
2020-10-01
2024-03-10
Cinéma & Cie
Laura Teixeira
2020/10/01
Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main
2036-461X
35
en
International Conference Histories of Tacit Cinematic Knowledge | Frankfurt am Main and worldwide (September 24–26, 2020) Organisers: Rebecca Boguska, Guilherme da Silva Machado, Rebecca Puchta, Marin Reljic and Philipp Röding
https://riviste.unimi.it/index.php/cinemaetcie/article/download/16548/20229
20
International Conference
Histories of Tacit Cinematic Knowledge
Frankfurt am Main and worldwide (September 24–26, 2020)
Organisers: Rebecca Boguska, Guilherme da Silva Machado,
Rebecca Puchta, Marin Reljic and Philipp Röding




   2020 has been full of challenges to do things differently. Attending an academic
conference in your pyjamas — at least from the waist down — might be one more
in a long list of things done for the first time in a year marked by social distancing
and restricted travel to avoid the spread of the coronavirus. Moreover, joining the
ubiquity of talking heads already present on the internet, scholars had to get used
to exposing their ideas in front of a (computer) camera instead of a live audience.
This was no different for the participants of the conference Histories of Tacit
Cinematic Knowledge organized by the Graduate Research Training Program
Configurations of Film (Goethe University Frankfurt). Given the impossibility of
realizing the event in person, as had been planned, the chosen format combined
two moments: recorded video presentations were made available online and, a
few days later, live discussions took place via Zoom over the course of three days.
   The conference brought together different approaches to the concept of
‘tacit cinematic knowledge,’ in order to embrace a variety of templates where
the previous experience with film and cinema influence life in unforeseen
ways. The three keynote speakers represented the diversity of objects and
methodological takes on the topic. Henning Schmidgen (Bauhaus University
Weimar) developed his talk Reconsidering Minor Cinema: René Laloux, Félix
Guattari, and the Machinery of Signs starting from the use of cinematic praxis
in the French psychiatric clinic of La Borde in the 1950s. During the Q&A, an
interesting discussion about the role of the canon and structures of power in the
field of film studies emerged. It became clear that the presented objects — be it
the collective artistic practice in the clinic, the genre of animation developed by
Laloux, or the legacy of Guattari’s work — could each still be seen as relatively
‘minor’ in terms of recognition, but that this perception is not static. Nothing is
immune to canonization, and we were reminded to stay attentive to the way we
are producing (and making explicit) knowledge today.
   In her presentation Cinematic Guerrillas in Mao’s China, Jie Li (Harvard
University) talked about the reception of revolutionary cinema in rural China,
stressing aspects of the personal exchange of (tacit) knowledge, between on
and off-screen guerrilla tactics, while also inviting us to rethink these films and
practices in the broader context of Third Cinema. Li’s use of the term ‘guerrilla’

                                                  Cinéma & Cie, vol. XX, no. 35, Fall 2020
                                  Reviews / Comptes-rendus


was then discussed by the participants, both in the potential of (counter)
revolution or resistance, as well as in a sort of contradiction of the moving image
that tends to render the martyrs and heroes of the revolution static.
   Motion and stillness were also thematised in a way in Teresa Castro’s
(Université Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3) keynote, entitled The 1970s Plant Craze
and the Cybernetic Paradigm, in which the examined films presented vegetable
beings not as simply motionless but as sentient creatures. The examples brought
representations of (more or less) scientific studies that supported the argument
that technical mediation, and the tacit knowledge thereof, was indispensable to
access plants’ intelligence. In the discussion, Castro went even further back in the
genealogy of such experiments, as well as pointing to more recent developments,
like in animistic currents in cinema today.
   In the five panels named, respectively, Directions, Templates, Archives, Cities
and Sciences, an even greater variety of objects were discussed. Tacit cinematic
knowledge(s) were central when analysing, for instance, US-election campaign
videos, the role of female spectatorship in Malayalam society, fan-made
scrapbooks and videos, ultrasound imagery, astronomic representations and
industry films advertising skyscrapers or dam constructions1. The panellists
joined the online audience to answer questions and develop some ideas further,
with enough breaks between the sessions to avoid the by now (in)famous
‘Zoom fatigue.’
   The final discussion saw a debate around the term ‘tacit’ and its use in the
context of the conference’s theme. According to the organizers, the idea came
from discussions inspired by Eric Ketelaar’s article2 as well as by the concept of
‘tacit knowledge’, as elaborated earlier by Michael Polanyi.3 Even if Polanyi’s
ideas remain somewhat controversial, the acknowledgment of ‘tacitness’ in
relation to the approach to film studies being put forward by the Research
Collective proved relevant throughout the conference. As became clear in the
final round table, attempting to make the ‘invisible’ visible, or the ‘implicit’
explicit, can have an important political role, by bringing other aspects from the
peripheries of film studies to the centre of the discussion and challenging our
own structures of knowledge and power.
   As for the format of the event, the tools deployed were probably more
challenging to the speakers and organizers than to the audience, already
accustomed to watching videos online and video-chatting with colleagues, friends
and family. Our tacit cinematic knowledge certainly contributed to making the
experience smoother, and that in the comfort of our own homes. The freedom
to watch the video contributions in a self-curated order and the alternance


1
  Full program and video presentations can be found under <www.tacit-histories.com> [accessed
December 9, 2020].
2
  Eric Ketelaar, ‘Tacit Narratives: The Meanings of Archives’, Archival Science, 1.2 (June 2001),
131–141.
3
  Michael Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966).

156
                        Histories of Tacit Cinematic Knowledge


of temporality between recorded presentations and live Q&A sessions were
rightfully praised by the participants, adding to the positive feeling of making
such a conference not just possible but also enjoyable in a pandemic year. On the
other hand, technical limitations and the lack of a real shared space for informal
social contact represent undeniable downsides. The unequal availability of
material conditions could be felt through some instances of internet connection
problems. And personal interactions, as in small talk before a panel or in a coffee
break, cannot anymore be taken for granted in their key role for the development
of ideas and collaborations. That is why, as soon as the health situation so allows,
it would be important to re-establish forms of un-mediated conviviality, even
if that means that we will need to get out of our pyjama pants and get used to
meeting in person again.

                        [Laura Teixeira, Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main]




                                                                                157
