Chaosophy - autonomous learning

matter of content extends so much more effectively beyond traditional
encodings, since the semiotic alloy that composes its matter
of expression is itself open to multiple systems of external intensities.
Its matters of expression are not fixed. They go in different directions.
Christian Metz enumerates some of them, emphasizing that
each has an intrinsic system of pertinent features:
1) the phonic fabric of expression, that refers to spoken language
(signifying semiology);
2) the sonorous but nonphonic fabric that refers to instrumental
music (asignifying semiotic);
3) the visual and colored fabric that refers to painting (mixed,
symbolic, and asignifying semiotic);
4) the noncolored, visual fabric that refers to black and white
photography (mixed, symbolic, and asignifying semiotic);
5) the gestures and movements of the human body, etc. (symbolic
semiologies).
Umberto Eco had already pointed out that cinema does not
bend to a system of double articulation, and that this had even led
him to try to find a third articulation. But, doubtless, it is preferable
to follow Metz who believes that cinema escapes all systems of
double articulation, and, in my opinion, all elementary systems of
significative encoding. The meanings in cinema are not directly
encoded in a machine of intersecting syntagmatic and paradigmatic
axes-they always come to it, secondarily, from external constraints
that model it. If silent film, for example, had succeeded in expressing
the intensities of desire in relation to the social field in a way that
was much more immediate and authentic than that of the talkies, it
was not because it was less expressive, but because the signifying script
had not yet taken possession of the image and because, in these conditions,
capitalism had not yet seized all the advantages it could take
from it. The successive inventions of the talkies, of color, of television,
etc., insofar as they enriched the possibilities of expressing
:)f /243