thank you for the invitation but what does "ever expanding construct of a very precarious morphology of the real" mean?

It means that:

1. Documentary and fiction film do note exist in two distinct categories.
2. It means that as contemporary subjects we are made in that lack of distinction i.e. our very makeup is precariously real, and so are the stories and the worlds we invent and project.
3. It means that this situation has a morphology i.e. a logic of form that is unique - and that form is visible and invisible i.e. it exists in time and space.

j.

1.but there is a distinction between documentary film and fiction film.
there is also a very interesting realm spanning between them which nuances the polarity, sometimes subverts it ( especially in the more indirect manner that qualifies as the filmmaking itself rather than content of the film, the transgression of genres...for instance, wisconsin death trip, or the koyaanisqatsi and co trilogy ... but not blair witch project, as a counter instance...that actually only succeeds to simplistically underline the distinction between fact and fiction)
but that doesn't mean that they are the same. your collapsing of distinction in not productive but nihilistic...fine, so we can claim nothing is distinct...and in dismissing a kernel of human knowledge (since fact and fiction are a human knowledge thing..not a nature thing) you dismiss a culture and that does not subvert it (...relevant subversion is not about dismissal, that latter is just not intelligent enough)

2. i'm sorry, but i can't seem to make sense of that number two. and that is for philosophocal (which is its language) points : how can a subject be 'made' without addressing how a 'subject' is made...and how can anything be made in a lack of distinction if, linguistically, you have already been able to define, precisely, this distinction. but not only is that phrase of yours an epistemological muddle, you then drain it into a nonsensical ontological/existential cesspool : 'our makeup being precariously real' ..again a confrontation of words ...what do you mean by precariously real? what is precarious about it? the fact that it possibly could not be real? well, then in that case its not real...its not precarious...do you mean our precarious knowledge of reality...and therefor you confuse the object of our knowedge with the subject? because, otherwise, really, what ur saying, is that reality is not reality...in which case its the opposite of tautology...that is to say, you didn't mean anything except to dogmatically deny something that is equally dogmatically affirmed.


3. you first cited a 'precarious morphology' (you then applied precarious to adjectivize the real...), that is to say an anti-morphology morphology..since morphology's aim is exactly the opposite of being precarious, it is a scientific preclusion of precariousness.. ..it establishes, scientifically, the patterns and structures of the internal units in forming the larger syntactical structure as a whole..change is seen as an internal product of this arrangement and not as 'precarious'. again, another muddle of word usage. as for form being visible and invisible...well, really visibility is an optical matter and either it is visible or invisible...it could be visible sometimes...and invisible at other times...but never simultaneously, no matter how witty it sounds.

ok, either i still dont understand you or i understand that you are not be understood

furthermore, is SCI-ARC a school of philosophy? in which case, it should be evaluated as one in order to determine whether it is capable of teaching philosphy. either yes or no, please....no more precariousness...

ok, that philosophical part of your post upset me...but this:

"the studio has attempted to problematize the city, its spaces and event systems by using the spatio-temporal base of film in a reversible manner, as a rejection of both synthetic montage and unitary urbanism; and as a blind embrace of ritualized bio and geopolitical drive, as a way to find new and alternative techniques between time and space through media"

scares me.

I think the post was an invitation. Just go ahead and check no on the RSVP form if you aren't interested...

thank you for that tip, it shall be treasured.