Midway through our documentary, yet in production, on the terrible consequences of depleted uranium contamination from the use and production of these munitions, I've videoed reflections on how it seems to be going. The reflections were recorded on a MacBookPro using its iSight software. The 10-minute reflection can be found at this Wild Clearing web page -- Wes Rehberg
VIEQUES ACTIVISTS ON DU IMPACT![]() Nilda Medina in Vieques |
|
While in Vieques in September 2007, I spoke with Nilda Medina, Ismael
Guadalupe, filmmaker Andres Nieves and Robert Rabin, founders and
members of the Committee for the Rescue and Development of Vieques, on
the impact from contamination from the U.S. Navy bombing practice on
the Puerto Rican island. These interviews are part of a developing
documentary on the impact of depleted uranium contamination on people
and the environment. Nilda speaks of the need for health services, Ismael offers insights into the resistance against the U.S. Navy presence for over 60 years and the contamination, Andres tells how he was personally affected, and Robert scopes out the history of the occupation and the extent of the contamination. These are roughly compiled video clips, basically unaltered, about 10 minutes each. To view these, visit this web page ... -- Wes Rehberg . |
Download | Duration: 00:06:40

|
|||||
|
|
| For
CPT/FTP May 2007
Stop-DU delegation (for viewing only, not for distribution) ** Video 1-minute rough-edited clip of balloon release - mp4 file ** Video 4-minute rough-edited clip of second visit to Aerojet's entryway to try to meet with Aerojet officials -- mp4 file These are short roughcut video clips to show parts of an upcoming documentary @2007 Wild Clearing all rights reserved |
![]() |
Visit this Wild Clearing web page to link to an mp4 or Google video of Rokke's talk. |
|
The horse in a red still life ...
The objects in the still life are "found objects" collected together for the purposes of exploring the space, both of the objects themselves and the space in between. The horse object provides a focal point for the discovery process in and around a sensation of colors ... * * * To view these and other works by the artist, click here ... |
![]() |
From Foreign Policy in Focus and IPS (Interpress News Service): ![]()
| ||
|
|
... These journeys took us to Nicaragua, Cuba, Honduras, El Salvador, to Chiapas and Hidalgo, Mexico, and to Palestine and Israel. Among encounters were meetings with Fidel Castro, Zapatista leaders, with survivors of massacres in Chiapas and Nicaragua, with indigenous activists who struggled for those in their midst, with persons living under death threat, and with persons struggling to survive with dignity in base-community cooperatives. The video clip on the right touches briefly on these trips. Visit our web sites for more detail ... |
|

Raumgeist and the Frame
Working my way through Derrida’s “The Truth in Painting,” I’ve tried to parse what he was saying about the frame, the parergon, but not without difficulty. Theoretically, Derrida plays off Kant’s third critique, “The Critique of Judgment,” read several years ago and now vaguely recalled.
I’ve been more a practicing theologian than philosopher, and the notion of Wild Clearing was initially conceptualized as a site of resistance, in the context of liberation theology, with the enframing boundary of the clearing the reaction of counter-resistance. The frame, in the case, is always fluid and subject to ruptures and collapse.
And since the ‘60s, the notion that is now labeled “raumgeist” here – the spirit of space (like zeitgeist, the spirit of the time) – always contained an inner-space/outer-space relationship, artistically as well as in the opened clearing of a site of resistance, mentioned above.
The Derridean/Kantean frame seems less apt to such a rupture, this parergon more a static separation between what’s inside and out, with Kant’s quality, quantity, relationship and modality the artistic characteristics at play inside, arousing pleasure without concept, purposivity without purpose. Without rereading the third critique, I also recall two infinitized characteristics that an artist engages in the act of putting the work in a frame, one quantifiable, and the other a dynamus that is unruly and wild that the artist’s genius is only barely able to gather into a work.
Derrida does a couple of things that are intriguing: 1) Using Cranach’s “Lucretia,” he deconstructs the notion of frame to place it within Kant’s parergon, pointing to the knifepoint that Lucretia holds against her flesh, and the slip of a veil across her lower body as two enframing aspects. 2) Derrida also finds a “lack” between a frame and what it encloses and demarks. This “lack” I don’t think refers to Lacan’s, but seems to be, in my difficulty trying to grasp what he means, a space that sets the frame apart from the work so that there is a rupture in the contiguity between frame and work. With Kant, a frame can either enhance or distract from a work. But the “lack” that Derrida posits interrupts this Kantian notion.
I envision this lack as the unfilled spaces in a crossword puzzle, perhaps. The characters D_ _ r _ _ a, for example, framing Jacques' nom famille, the lack in this case easily identified. As the clues, and the spaces, become more obscure and complex, so does the lack play a larger role, so that it even eliminates the possibility of conceptualizing letters that may frame a clue, leaving simply a “lack,” a trace without a trace. (Or, on the other hand, one could ask whimsically: Does a Barnett Newman painting really need an added frame?)
In the context of a liberation theology approach to Wild Clearing, as another take-off, this “lack” in the enframing boundary between resistance and counter-resistance would be the extent to which mediation would be impossible, and as well, the lack of power within the frame to prevent its collapse.
Still, of the two parergonic approaches Derrida takes, the first is the more fascinating to me, because it places the framing element within a work, which itself then encloses the work and whatever artifice might be framing it from without. This, to me, also resonates strongly with “raumgeist.” Briefly put for now, this has two senses:
In the second sense, I think of two scenes in Krzysztof Kieslowski’s trilogy, “Bleu,” “Blanc,” et “Rouge.” In an opening scene of “Blanc,” a suitcase trundles along a conveyer. One later discovers that it encloses the protagonist, reconstituting its enframing assumption so that its interior space has a spirit quite different from what might have been initially assumed. And, in a closing scene of “Rouge,” the protagonists of the three films emerge together from a ferry disaster as the sole survivors, also adding both a different frame to the trilogy from within this scene, as well as a different spirit within the space each film engendered.
© Wes Rehberg 2007
Khora, energy-field and trace –
I’m trying to work out Derrida’s notions of “trace” and his interpretation of Plato’s “khora,” with the idea of energy-field, as these may play in the “documentary” project I’ve been undertaking.
Simply put, and without references, Plato in the Timaeus talks about that which receives, or in which is inscribed the phenomena that our senses engage. On one side, it’s given a maternal receptivity, like a nurse holding a child, but on another, it’s indistinct, not a thing, but yet a place that contains the beyond beyond, the eidos, particularly the Good, which itself informs the field of phenomena, which it also contains. The latter interpretation of khora is what intrigued Derrida, and it’s this khora that he called the surname of différance.
So, I’ve been randomly filming around the Chattanooga region what I perceive to be “traces,” but as those in an energy-field, clearings opening and displaying traces, as well as being traces in themselves, and displaced traces. The notion of the khora helps nest all this, so the space of the film by extension emulates that of the khora, the space/place where the field and the traces (and the film) reside.
Problem is how is this structured over time as a film, a video? And though it is like a documentary, not fiction, by engaging scenes and people as they are when the camera rolls, what genre am I working in?
The working name for what I’m doing is “Chattatonic Traces,” but that sounds too clever and maybe reflects my own catatonia when it comes to the “aporia,” the impasse and gap I’m facing in trying to reconcile these notions and scenes cinematically.
Structure and thematic coherency are the problems.
A Question of Age and Discovery
It’s hard to figure why age has relevance to the creative spirit, or why age may be considered relevant to whether one has capability as an artist. The inspiration yet comes, the muse still guides, the capacity to work within a medium still is there. Charles Ives, composer, began his work in earnest while he was in his sixties; Henri Matisse created with cutouts when no longer able to adequately wield a brush, the catalog is long – but almost all artists do it all their lives. I’ve only worked sporadically until now.
So, at age 70, two years into video making, I try to figure out where it all goes – thus the musings of past thoughts: midrash, vulnerability, notions, documentary impressions, chiasm, dreams, and on. I work solo, these days mainly on the streets of
The question of age figures in nevertheless. I work solo, out of choice, no crew, thinking of the camcorder as one might a still camera, recalling the ways Cartier-Bresson and Eugene Smith worked maybe, considering photojournalism, but also on movement, surfaces, reflections, textures, sounds, sweeps, images that are barely discernable, mystery, vulnerability, multiple exposures, death and life, rhythms – that is on more than journalism, but on something personal and perhaps unique, the way things “hit and fit,” as mentioned, on discovery.
What is it that is to be discovered within one’s own lexicons, elisions, vocabularies, sensibilities, emotions, and so on? Where do I go to find that? Is an audience relevant to what I do? Is acceptability? Do I look to a marketplace for artistic esteem? Yes, in a sense to all these questions, but no, in another sense, because something is lost in the creative process if one tries to discern what pleases instead of working on the creative contours of one’s own calling and gift, however measurable.
There is no “inside-track” in this sense to artistic work (I’ve been thinking about putting together something called “Outside Tracks”). Whatever is authentic is more what it’s about. Even though I try to define it, I keep coming back to what “hits and fits.”
I think the difference between me and the realists is that I want – perhaps like the surrealists – to open a scene up as if it were a mysterious memory, once forgotten and not quite retrievable. Like a dream that wakes one but remains elusive and yet impels. That feeling and mindfulness.
But I want to do this in a documentary-style setting, with realistic coordinates and images – that can be seen through, as if one would say: “I know that, that’s a person nodding his head rhythmically.” Or, “That’s a woman taking a survey, a man putting out a cigarette on a wall …” But, in this midst, is another meaning, elusive, not quite graspable, that the mind, maybe the forebrain, the soul, wants to know more about, to explore in the imagination, yet remains un-nameable.
Not all scenes would carry this tension … some would be, are, simply what is present to the senses, but the mystery-scene, once it comes, turns the others toward it, seeks interpretation in the fullest sense of mind and feeling.
Maybe what I’m really getting at is postmodern-surrealism.
Mystery and Vulnerability ...
Surfaces and the mystery beneath, and vulnerability, are creative themes I prefer. Surfaces become fragile and translucent, and the mystery is the Wild that opens a Clearing in the midst of the interplay between these all.
The thematics of vulnerability and mystery also relate to how body moves in the reality that presents as body negotiates in the midst of surfaces that seem impermeable to it, but which also can wound it, penetrate it, soothe it, warm it, chill it, kill it. Even the wind becomes a surface.
So the Simple Meaning presents in vulnerability at the surface with mystery lurking, may reveal a Clue, which in the presentation opens up Interpretation – not only reasoned but felt, and as well an opportunity to illuminate the Wild Clearing in Mystery, even the Mystic.