quarta-feira, 30 de dezembro de 2009
terça-feira, 29 de dezembro de 2009
Associação Terra na Boca/Festival TRANSdisse 2009 em parceria com o Contagiarte apresentam: Festival Internacional de Cinema de Artes Performativas
(Frame retirado do filme)
Associação Terra na Boca/Festival TRANSdisse 2009 em parceria com o Contagiarte apresentam:
Festival Internacional de Cinema de Artes Performativas - Extensão da 1ª edição do FICAP decorrida em 2008, em Lisboa, com uma selecção de filmes de Frederico Corado.
Informe, Documentário de Eva Ângelo
30 de Dezembro
Contagiarte - Porto
Rua Álvares Cabral, 372
A partir da visita a diferentes fases da produção da performance INVENTÁRIO, de Joclécio Azevedo, INFORME é um olhar sobre esta criação, dando espaço à subjectividade da realizadora enquanto observadora para construir um percurso paralelo.
um filme com | anaïs bouts, joana bergano, joclécio azevedo, tiago barbosa e vera mota
captação e pós-produção audio | quico serrano
operação de câmara | joão paulo nunes e ricardo costa
retroversão e tradução | rui costa santos
realização e edição | eva ângelo
co-produção | alfândega filmes e núcleo de experimentação coreográfica
produção executiva | joana ventura e mafalda couto soares
agradecimentos | horácio fernandes, jorge neves, manuela ferreira e salomé neves
Montemor-o-novo, Porto e Lisboa © 2006-2007
A partir da performance INVENTÁRIO
Co- Produção | Culturgest / o espaço do tempo
Projecto financiado pelo Ministério da Cultura / Instituto das Artes
FICAP é uma organização da Entrar em Palco ˆ Associação Cultural com a colaboração do Museu Nacional do Teatro
O NEC é uma estrutura financiada pelo MC/DGArtes
Fábrica Social - Rua da Fábrica Social, s/n
Tel. 225188522 / Tlm. 961424668 :: 913211428
segunda-feira, 28 de dezembro de 2009
The Institute of English Cultures and Literatures, University of Silesia
The Committee on Literature Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences
Civilisation and Fear
Writing and the Subject/s of
Conference Call for Papers
22-25 September 20l0
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust.
(T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land, ll.27-3O)
What Eliot voices here is, no doubt, his fear and, simultaneously, concern about the
prospects of European civilisation as he saw it in the first decades of the 2Oth c. Eliot’s lines
carry eschatological overtones, too. Do we fear the end of our civilisation, or the condition it
has reached at present? What is the connection between fear and civilisation? Are we still
waiting for the barbarians? Do we have more fear of the real or the virtual? Should we,
perhaps, opt for the positive senses of fear whose presence may testify to the mystery
human life is, or brings to light the limitations which human life involves? Can we
possibly conquer our fears by writing about them, and redefining their sources? Aren’t we –
as individuals, citizens, family members, superiors and inferiors, natives and strangers,
bodies and spirits – our own fears writ large?
This call for papers is not intended to alarm or intimidate anyone. We extend a cordial invitation to all scholars who take genuine interest in any of the issues raised in the title of the conference as well as those listed below. Our aim is to address a multiplicity of concerns which often coincide and intersect in modern discourses (including literary and cultural studies, psychology, sociology, religious studies, art and others). However, we propose to consider writing (both literary and non-literary) as a window onto, and a meeting ground for, the following themes:
· Arts & literature: the future of arts; literatures of terror; artistic (literary) modes (genres)
of terror; the terrific/horrific sublime; (limits of) self-fashioning and self-expression;
anxiety of influence in the age of parody, travesty and appropriation
· Civilisation & technology: fear of modernisation & of acceleration; clashes of
civilisations; the fearful interplay between culture and nature; man vis-à-vis machine (e.g.,
threats to humanness, simulacra of the human as source of anxiety, “new” humanity)
· Politics & ideology: enslavement, subjection, subordination through discourses; the
“fearful asymmetry”: discourses & practices of the modern state (intersections of the
political and the personal); democracy, liberty(ies), religion: from orthodoxy to
fundamentalism and back, the self of ideology
· Discourses: thanatophobia and the postmodern condition; religious studies as a
necessary/contingent by-product of recent traumas; fear and/of metaphysics; power and its
institutions as forces prescribing discourses of the self
· Identity / the self: phobias of exposure to fear and trauma; the threatened/shifting selfhood
& competing models of subjectivity; the sub/un/conscious; the Lacanian Real
We invite all delegates to deliver 20-minute presentations. Abstracts of the
presentations should not exceed 200 words and should be submitted
electronically to email@example.com by March 31, 2010.
For further details please visit: http://www.fear.us.edu.pl
The registration form will be attached to the first Circular (to be sent to prospective participants in April) and will be also available from our website. The registration fee will not exceed $150 (inclusive of access to all conference events, delegate bag, mid-session refreshments, seminar room hire, and the publication of conference proceedings). As you receive this, our negotiations with prospective sponsors are under way, and we expect to be able to reduce the fee. You will be notified of any alterations in this regard.
Institute of English Cultures and Literatures
University of Silesia
ul. S. Grota-Roweckiego 5
in cooperation with
The Committee on Literature Studies, Polish Academy of Sciences
Chair of the Organising Committee
Prof. Wojciech Kalaga
Secretary of the Organising Committee
Prof. Agata Bielik-Robson – IFiS, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poland
Prof. Jeremy Tambling – University of Manchester, UK
Prof. Horst Ruthrof – Murdoch University, Australia
The conference will take place in Ustroń, Poland. Details will be included in the conference circulars. We
estimate that full board and accommodation should not exceed 150 PLN per day (ca $50). Detailed get-to
information will be posted in the forthcoming circular.
Contact us at: firstname.lastname@example.org
For further details please visit: http://www.fear.us.edu.pl
Que Natal ! Passei-o a fazer dieta para poder hoje ir submeter-me a exame de rotina, uma endoscopia alta e baixa (com anestesia, safa!). Felizmente tudo mais ou menos OK, nada de grave.
Grave foi ontem todo o dia em jejum, e a beber quatro litros quatro de um líquido horrível, indispensável à preparação, que dá pelo nome de Klean-Prep. Poucos aguentam tal dose, bebida às goladas (no meu caso entre as 18 h de ontem e as 9 de hoje...).
Já passou e já não é a primeira vez.
Não deu foi para leituras muito profundas... valeu-me o facebook, onde pus centenas de fotos!
domingo, 27 de dezembro de 2009
Constellations of objects: interactive material worlds
to be held at the Pitt Rivers Museum, 5th June 2010.
The affective properties of objects in the singular has attracted much discussion; we wish to build upon this work by considering how objects act together as a group. What is the role of objects in the creation of aesthetic environments? Are aesthetic environments created through object interrelations and what role does intentionality and serendipity play in the process? Are the affective properties of assemblages natural – and thus enduring – or socially contingent? In which case, are the decisions that governed the creation of assemblages in the past recoverable in the material record as it is manifested in the present? What is our role in the re-imagining of ancient assemblages? Can there be a phenomenology of aesthetic sensibility that is valid and rigorous?
We invite papers that explore these themes in any time and in any place. Participants may like to consider them from the following perspectives:
(i) the decisions that determine the inclusion or exclusion of particular objects within specific sacred, secular or funerary environments;
(ii) the ways in which assemblages may be added to or subtracted from at different points in their life-cycle: from enactment to the point of the trowel and beyond into the museum environment; (iii) and, following the last point, how authentic our recreations of object constellations and their charismatic affect can ever be.
The organisers expect to publish presented papers in a peer-reviewed proceedings volume.
Charge: £15:00, including refreshments and wine reception.
Please submit abstracts by 31/01/2010.
Abstracts and enquiries should be sent to:
Alice Stevenson, Pitt Rivers Museum, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PP.
Linda Hulin, Institute of Archaeology, 36 Beaumont Street, Oxford OX1 5BE.
Dr Linda Hulin
Oriental Institute/Institute of Archaeology
University of Oxford
Linda Hulin email@example.com
2010) of our International Festival of Archaeological Film the main
theme will be the new researches and discoveries of the international archaeology and the archaeology of the Italian civilization.
But this is not the only theme!The Festival is open to any film in the
fields of archaeological, historical, palethnological and
anthropological research and to any documentary aimed at preserving
and valuing the cultural heritage.
All films selected for our Festival can receive the "Città di
Rovereto-Archeologia Viva" Prize given by the public to the most
Deadline for the inscription: 20th APRIL 2010
It will be appreciate all the possible informations about film
productions on these subjects or about the new productions.
NEWS! In the wake of www.sperimentarea.tv, a web channel managed by the Town Museum of Rovereto, we invite you to have a look at www.archeologiaviva.tv a web channel wholly dedicated to archaeology. The editorial staff is managed by Archeolgia Viva whereas the institutional, technical and administrative aspects are managed by Gruppo Giunti Editore and the Town Museum of Rovereto (The Town Council of Rovereto). Archeologia Viva TV features mainly news and the latest developments of international archaeological research. It also features all of the conversations-interviews in archaeological research which have been filmed and recorded in past festivals in Rovereto, and of course films about the millenary history of man and the ancient world. It is an exacting challenge and service. We do not have economic or commercial aims but we can indirectly create opportunities for the film productions that need promotion and visibility. We also really hope you will take part with your films!
Dario Di Blasi - Festival Director
Francesca Maffei - Festival Organizer
Rassegna Internazionale del Cinema Archeologico
Museo Civico di Rovereto
Borgo Santa Caterina 43
38068 Rovereto (Tn)
tel/phone +39 0464 439055
fax +39 0464 439487
Web Tv: www.sperimentarea.tv
European Journal of Archaeology
European Journal of Archaeology 2007; 10; 231
Book Review: V. Oliveira Jorge and J. Thomas, eds, Overcoming the
Modern Invention of Material Culture. (Porto: ADECAP, Journal of Iberian
Archaeology 9, 2006_2007, Special Issue)
The online version of this article can be found at:
On behalf of:
European Association of Archaeologists
V. Oliveira Jorge and J. Thomas, eds, Overcoming
the Modern Invention of Material Culture. (Porto:
ADECAP, Journal of Iberian Archaeology 9,
2006–2007, Special Issue)
This volume addresses the long overdue question
of the dualism underlying the expression
‘material culture’, a concept that has dominated
much of archaeological research over
the last decades, while coming to designate a
new field of interdisciplinary academic
inquiry. The editors duly introduce the volume
by addressing the fact that words are
never innocent. The words we choose engender
social categories and taxonomies, therefore
discussing and revising conceptual labels are
never self-indulgent intellectual exercises but
a constitutive aspect of any research agenda.
Collected here are the presentations given at
the 2006 TAG meeting in Exeter. An article by
Ingold (2007), who was also the discussant,
was pre-circulated among the participants.
This enabled the authors to engage more thoroughly
with Ingold’s critique of the distinction
between a ‘material’ and a ‘cultural’ order
implied in the term, and the seemingly spurious
attempts to overcome it that are concealed
in the now increasingly popular term ‘materiality’
as a background for their discussions.
Undoubtedly Ingold (2000, 2007) has been
one of the main voices rising against the delusions
of modernity’s dichotomous thinking,
and his ideas are insightful and operative in
pushing the discipline forward. Yet there is
largely a suspicious attitude, as if archaeologists
and other scholars concerned with materials
required a ‘detective’ to highlight the
tracks of taken-for-granted categories. This
suspiciousness is a common thread uniting the
articles, as most of the chapters open by indicating
how previous or current approaches to
things are ‘still modern’ even when claiming
not to be so, before outlining their proposed
ways to move forward. However, one of the
greatest shortcomings of this otherwise worthy
endeavour is the fact that only a few articles
address this question through an engagement
Many of the chapters that do engage with
materials seem to use them as excuses for discussing
theoretical positions in ways that
remain more declamatory than interpretive
and, in general, the book does not provide the
reader with an adequate sense of the unavoidable
presence of materials in past worlds.
While authors steadfastly reiterate that things
are ‘gatherings’, ‘bundles of relations’, or ‘convergences’,
they are nevertheless relegated to
the background of these exciting ideas. This
contradiction at the heart of the book reminds
us of earlier projects in archaeology, and
presages a deeper question.
Indeed, this agenda seems in line with early
postprocessual critique, when the ‘archaeological
unconscious’ was the preferred target of
analysis and the tangible order somehow
receded in the background, as an excuse or
entry point to talk about meaningful human
action in both the past and the present. As I
have just said, whilst the critique of categories
is necessary work and thus constitutive of our
craft (and I have engaged in such a tracking
myself), one wonders whether the project is
running counter to its own propositions. For if
our knowledge of the world is embodied, and
thinking does not take place outside our
involvement in the world, one must assume
that binary categories are somehow a part of
our intersubjective, embodied existence. That
is, binaries may not only be a manifestation of
hegemonic thinking, but also a part of how we
experience the world in which we are brought
into being. Therefore, how can we claim to
‘overcome’ them? And isn’t this aspiration to
overcome historically given notions intrinsically
dialectical and modern? This means that
since our resources are polluted, the critical
examination of the conditions and parameters
of knowledge production is necessarily a collective
endeavour. Yet this can only work effectively
if we find ways of not only discussing,
but also of researching and writing that fully
embrace materials and their complexities.
The relevant question is perhaps how to
deconstruct the categories in ways that are
more sensitive to the experience of other
societies (as well as our own), while avoiding
the pitfalls of either reifying difference (both
in the past and the present), or seamlessly
connecting the past and present in genealogies
One of the preferred paths chosen by the
authors has been to use ethnography as suggestive
of potentialities in human societies.
Although offering new understandings that are
helpful in highlighting the richness of human
experience beyond what has been delineated
by Modernity, many times the ideas put forward
by these works are discussed without
fully engaging with their relevance to the contexts
under study. In other words, a lifeworld –
formed by elements of various kinds – may
afford particular material textures that may or
may not be similar to what the particular
archaeological context we study discloses.
Whilst ethnography allows us to think differently
about our materials, we need to go further
and actually trace the assemblages and
gatherings of things, and the relations that create
the very fabric of things. Admittedly, this
task exceeds the limits imposed by the conference
format, but some chapters in the volume
have managed to introduce interesting discussions
weaving practices and materials seamlessly
despite space limitations (e.g. chapters by
Hoffman; Lynch; TroncosoM.).
This might be related to a limited view of
materiality, which seems to be understood as a
discursive mask preventing us from seeing that
things emerge from a field of relations and
incorporate in their formthe processes by which
they come into being. ‘Materials’ (or ‘artefacts’:
Ingold 2000:340–348, 2007) is a good-enough
word to describe such a process. ‘Material culture’
assumes that materiality (as physicality) is
impenetrable, only wrapped around by culture
(as the imposition of meaning), and in this view,
the recent use ofmateriality in social theory continues
This is of course a very valid point that
may never be covered satisfactorily by any
single perspective. Although this could be
accused of spinning the discussion into superficial
semantics, I have argued elsewhere that
materiality is a necessary word to address the
relationality of the world (Lazzari 2005). It
implies a different way of conceiving the tangible,
beyond function and technicality,
but including the capacities of the physical
properties of things to modify human perception
and action. Artefacts help us enter beyond
the physical into the realm of the imaginary in
the sense of Merleau Ponty (1975), that is, as
generated by lived bodies rather than
detached consciousnesses. In this sense, the
tangible is not something to be transcended in
order to create meaning. In line with what
most of the authors of the book argue, the tangible
is itself an emergent property of myriad
lived relations of various orders and kinds. Yet
unlike many of the authors, materiality as a
concept enables our immersion in such orders
and kinds without forgetting the tangible. Our
thick descriptions of past lifestyles should
engage with the full life of artefacts, even
when their various performances as active
bodies may have been apparently contradictory.
This requires overcoming traditional separations
between classes of materials; only in
relation to each other (and to other elements
of the lifeworld) do artefacts reveal their
multiplicity. Thus carefully tracked interrelations
between material classes and past practices
may reveal the multi-layered nature of
artefacts (e.g. as ambiguous performers caught
between representational projects and their
dissolution). Such an angle may be missed
from an analysis that focuses on single material
classes that only have dialogue with contemporary
ethnography (cf. Alberti’s critique
in the volume).
The concern about the relational constitution
of the tangible and the multiplicity of
things has a long and more complex genealogy
than the authors seem to accept. Merleau Ponty
(2000:163) proposed the continuity of bodies
and things in the fabric of the world. Lefebvre
(1991:222) described things as textures, nodes in
fields of relation; a lived fabric of rhythms and
relationships learned and understood through
praxis. Also Mauss (1968 ), often taken as
a ‘suspect’ of Cartesianism, preceded recent
inquiries into the etymology of the word ‘matter’,
highlighting the animated and relational
understandings that had been erased by modern
thinking. Even Marx – another suspect –
disclosed like few others the absurd operations
behind the conceptual separation of mind and
matter (Marx 1977; see Stallybrass 1998).
Deleuze and Guattari (1987:21) called
dualisms ‘the necessary enemy, the furniture
we are forever rearranging’. Overcoming our
entrenched conceptualizations of the world is
an ongoing project that travels back and forth,
therefore all efforts should be welcome. This
volume succeeds at introducing a necessary
discussion and encourages a promising disciplinary
shift toward relational ontology; yet
by keeping materials in the background it may
undermine the broader impact, both in the
discipline and beyond, that it seeks to achieve.
DELEUZE, G. and F. GUATTARI, 1987. A Thousand
Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia.Minneapolis:
University ofMinnesota Press.
INGOLD, T., 2000. The Perception of the
Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwelling and
Skill. London: Routledge.
INGOLD, T., 2007. Materials against materiality.
Archaeological Dialogues 14(1):1–16.
LAZZARI, M., 2005. The texture of things:
Objects, people and social spaces in NW
Argentina (first millennium AD). In L. Meskell
(ed.), Archaeologies of Materiality: 126–161.
LEFEBVRE, H., 1991. The Production of Space.
MAUSS, M., 1968. Conceptions qui ont précedé
la notion de matiére (Conference, 1939). In V.
Karady (pres.), OEuvres II: 161–166. Paris:
Editions de Minuit.
MARX, K., 1977. On Mills. In D. McLellan (ed.),
Karl Marx: Selected Writings: 114–123. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
MERLEAU PONTY, M., 1975. The Visible and the
Invisible. Evanston, IL: North Western
MERLEAU PONTY, M., 2000. Eye and mind. In J.
Edie (ed.), The Primacy of Perception: 159–190.
Evanston, IL: NorthWestern University Press.
STALLYBRASS, P., 1998. Marx’s coat. In P. Spyer
(ed.), Border Fetishisms: Material Objects in
Unstable Places: 183–207. London: Routledge.
Department of Archaeology,
University of Exeter, UK
Downloaded from http://eja.sagepub.com at Hogskolan i Kalmar on January 9, 2009