Dear Memory: Facticity

Distinguishing ‘recollection’ and ‘memory’ as a supposition is like imagining recollection in precision toward the past, and recollection in spatial toward the past. ‘Recollection’ can be seen as objective, bringing the past precisely, in the belief that said reality is objective, so that it can be represented in precision contemporarily. ‘Memory’ meanwhile, is a recollection containing facticity/contingency leading to the presence of the past in a state of perpetual spatiality. The postulate conjecture that recollection is a kind of objective history, or a past possible for repeated recreation in its believed precision. Similar to historical cinema and its intention to reconstruct the past faithfully just as “the reality of what’s happening in the past”. In the case of memory, it is more of a conjuring of the past, along with moments, traumas, speech act, et cetera, in its spatiality. The presence of the past, in memory, is a performative act opens to contemporary influence and facticity. Recollection is probably becoming a kind of singular history, as assessed by Walter Benjamin. Memory, on the other hand, is analogous to what Hans Gadamer imagined as an open history, where statement in regard to history adds to the history.

These “memories” shape, and shaped, in emergency situation created from the singularity of history, repressive to the variety of spatiality of individual experience. Strategies to counter this singularity of history can result in a set of actions, or non-narrative objects, or something untranslatable, either as a form of interruption or rejection over the uniformity and singularity of history. These strategies also supposing that the singularity of history is akin to a language regime, in which attempts to exit said regime made possible through performative acts. Narrative tradition in its illustrative custom in the supernatural and the mystical, confounding the boundaries of past, present, and future, can also be seen as a strategy against singularity of history. These periods of memory allow cinema to put an enormous contribution in articulating the iniquity of history, or the injustice of the past, where social science that is supposed to be the aspiration for objective history instead holding a role in creating a regime that enforces singularity of history (power regime).

Memory as a non-representational concept, effectively presents in The Origin of Fear (Bayu Prihantoro Filemon, 2016), in a performative of sounds begetting a more vivid trauma, as sound can be perceived as an image that requires no amplification and singularity in its visual constituent. Memoria (Kamila Andini, 2016) meanwhile, employs memory as image, presenting a recording of subaltern situation. When language and ‘the unspoken’ are no longer adequate, image becomes a moment of presence over the past experience itself. The memory in The Troubled Troubadour (Forest Ian Etsler & Sébastien Simon, 2016) is a different concept from the continuity of the past framed in objectivity. Memory is a momentous event and personal in nature, including inside is the spiritual moment, it can’t be confined in a set of rules (methodology), yet through a sound (music) it manages to be stimulated.

Collective curation | Co-curated by Akbar Yumni (Jurnal Footage)

**Screening followed with presentation from director and response by curator, Akbar Yumni

  • FFD 2017 | Memoria
  • FFD 2017 | The Origin of Fear
    The Origin of Fear
  • FFD 2017 | The Troubled Troubadour
    The Troubled Troubadour