들뢰즈의 󰡔시네마󰡕에 나타난

영화 이미지 존재론

이 지 영*
1)

, ,
, , - , - , -

󰡔 󰡕
‘ ’ .

. 󰡔 󰡕
.

- .
.

. .
-
.
,
-
. ,

*
248

. - .
, - , -
.
.
-
-
.
.

I. 들어가면서

󰡔 1, - (Cinéma 1,
L’Image-mouvement)󰡕 󰡔 2, - (Cinéma 2, L’image-
temps)󰡕
.
. 󰡔 󰡕

.
󰡔 󰡕
. 󰡔 - 󰡕
-
. - (variétés) -
.
(taxinomie) . - , - ,
 󰡔 󰡕 249

- , - , -
,
.
,
.

.
󰡔 - 󰡕 󰡔 - 󰡕
. 󰡔 - 󰡕 ,
- -
. ,

. -
, -
, -
. -
. 󰡔 -
󰡕 󰡔 - 󰡕
.

.
,
󰡔 󰡕
- 󰡔 - 󰡕
. 󰡔 - 󰡕
.
-
.
.
250

-
.
󰡔 󰡕
,
.
-
.
-
.

II. 베르그송의 ‘이미지’ 개념

󰡔 󰡕 ,
‘
(image)’ . “
,

.”1)
. “ ,
”2) .
, .
,
,
. “
”3) .

1) Henri Bergson, Matière et M émoire, puf, 1896, p. 11/37 ( MM

, 󰡔 󰡕, , , 2005 .)
2) MM., p. 11/37
 󰡔 󰡕 251

. ,
1 2 .
‘ (esse est percipi)’
. “
.

”4) ‘
’. “ ,
”5). ,
.
. ‘
( )’ ‘ ( )’
.

.
?

.
,

3) MM., p. 2/23 .
4) Paul Naulin, “Le problème de la conscience et la notion d’image” dans
Bergson Naissance d’une philosophie, PUF, 1990, p. 100.
5) MM., p. 2/23 .
252

,
‘ ’
.

.
“
”6) .

,
. .
.
, .
, .
,
. .7)

. ,
. “
,

6) Frédéric Worms, Introduction à Matière et mémoire de Bergson., PUF.

1997. p. 21.
7) MM., p. 20/50 .
 󰡔 󰡕 253

.8)

.
,
.
. “
(extériorité) (objectivité) .”9)

.
,
.
.

.
,

.
, .
,
.
.

, ‘ ’

8) , ,
, 2005, 31 .
9) Frédéric Worms, Introduction à Matière et mémoire de Bergson, PUF,
1997, p. 21.
254

.
.
“ (intérêt tout
spéculatif) (connaissance pure)” ,

, “
10) .

.
,

. “
,
.”11)
,
“
”12) .

10) MM., p. 44/82-83 .

11) John Mullarkey, “La méprise de l’homonculus et l'image de la science,
deux interprétations de la Perception pure de Bergson” dans Bergson et les
Neurosciences, 1997. p.134
12) MM., p. 21/52 .
 󰡔 󰡕 255

III. 이미지의 존재론적 의미: 내재성의

평면으로서의 이미지

, .
.
. ,

.
,
.
. .
,
.13)

, ‘ = ’ .
- .
- -
.
“

”14) .

13) Gilles Deleuze, Cinéma 1 L’image-Mouvement, les Éditions de M inuit,

1983, p. 86. ( IM )
14) , ,
, 2005, 42 .
256

.
, -
,
.
“ ”15)
.

,
.
.
.16)

,
.
. ,

.
.

15) MM., p. 169/260 .

16) MM., p. 154/239 .
 󰡔 󰡕 257

, ,
.

(plan d'immanence) . “ , , ,
, , .”17)
, “
(Un-Tout illimité) .
,
. ,
.”18) (constructivisme)
,
. “
.
.”19) .
‘ ’20) ,
, ,
. “
”21) , “ ”22)
,
.
.
, .

17) IM., p. 86.

18) Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari, Qu’est-ce que la philosophie?, Les Éditions
de Minuit, 1991, p. 38. ( Qph )
19) Qph, p. 38.
20) Qph, p. 39.
21) Qph, p. 59.
22) Qph, p. 59.
258

.
“
”23) .

.
. .
.
-
. - - (matière-écoulement)
.24)

“
”25) . ‘ =
= = ’ ,
.

. “

.”26)
, ,
.
.
,
. = = =

23) IM., p. 86.

24) IM., pp. 86-87.
25) IM., p. 88.
26) , 󰡔 󰡕, , 2004, 43-44 .
 󰡔 󰡕 259

IV. 감산으로서의 지각

, .
.
.
,
.

.
. “

,
,
.”27)
- ,
. -

,
,
?28)

27) , ,
, 2005, 40 .
28) MM., p. 36/72 .
260

,
.

, -
.
.

.29)

, .
.30)

-
.

.
.

. ,31)

29) MM., 35/71 .

30) MM., 74-75/125 .
31) “
. (cadrage) ”(IM. 91)
,
.
 󰡔 󰡕 261

-
,
.
,

. .
.
.

-
.

.
, .
.
.
‘ (anchorage)’ .

, .
.

.
262

.
,
.
,

V. 영화의 지각-이미지

-
, - .
, , .
, ,
.
(P. P. Pasolini)
.
-
. ‘ - ’
.
, .
,
.

.
.
 󰡔 󰡕 263

.
,
.

.
.
(Mitry)
, “ (image mi-
subjective)”32) . “
. .
(Mitsein) . ‘ ’
.”33)

. “
.”34)
“

”35) .
.
-
.
- -
.

32) IM., 106.

33) IM., 106.
34) IM., 106.
35) IM., 106.
264

. ,
-

.
-
(Verto
v)36) .
- (kino-
eye) . -
.

.
. “

.”37)

, “
, , ”38)

36)
.

. - (kino-eye)
(montage)
- (kino-pravda) .

( , 2005 ) .
37) Frédérique Devaux, L’Homme a la camera de Dziga Vertov, Editions
Yellow Now, 1990, p. 30.
38) , : ,
, 󰡔 󰡕, , p. 222.
 󰡔 󰡕 265

. “

”39) .
- ,

. “ ,

,
. , ”40)
.
.
,

,
,

.
.41)

“
” .42)

, 󰡔 󰡕 1
(universelle
variation) 43).

39) , 218 .
40) IM, p. 117.
41) .
42) Dziga Vertov, “From Kino-Eye to Radio-Eye”, Kino-Eye, p. 88.
266

.
-
-
,
.
-
-
.

VI. 나오면서

.
. -

43) (Eisenstein)
.
.

, .
 󰡔 󰡕 267

. ,
,
.44)
,
.
.
, ,
,
.
.

44)
.

,
.
268

참고문헌

Dziga Vertov, “From Kino-Eye to Radio-Eye”, in Kino-Eye,

University of California Press, 1984.
Frédéric Worms, Introduction à Matière et mémoire de Bergson.,
PUF. 1997.
Frédérique Devaux, L’Homme a la camera de Dziga Vertov, Editions
Yellow Now, 1990.
Gilles Deleuze, Cinéma 1 L’image-Mouvement, les Éditions de
Minuit, 1983.
Gilles Deleuze, Felix Guattari, Qu’est-ce que la philosophie?, Les
Éditions de Minuit, 1991.
Henri Bergson, Matière et Mémoire, puf, 1896.
John Mullarkey, “La méprise de l’homonculus et l'image de la
science, deux interprétations de la Perception pure de Bergson”
dans Bergson et les Neurosciences, 1997.
Paul Naulin, “Le problème de la conscience et la notion d’image”
dans Bergson Naissance d’une philosophie, PUF, 1990.
, ,
, 2005.
, 󰡔 󰡕, , 2004.
,
, 16 1 ,
, 2005.
, :
, , 󰡔 󰡕,
, 2003.
 󰡔 󰡕 269

ABSTRACT

The Ontology of Cinematic Images in G. Deleuze’s

Cinéma

Lee, Ji-Young
45)

The purpose of this article is to clarify the ontological meaning of

cinematic images in Deleuze’s philosophy. Bergson proposes the
concept of ‘Image’ in order to resolve the philosophical problems of
dualist theories concerning matter and mind. Bergson’s images
include both materiality and spirituality. But the images are identified
with matter that exists outside of consciousness. Deleuze accepts
Bergson’s concept of images in Cinéma and applies this concept to
the cinematic images. Deleuze further applies Bergson’s theory of
perception to the cinematic perception-image.
In this course of discussion, Deleuze extends Bergson's plane of
materiality into the plane of immanence. The plane of immanence
plays a role of being an ontological basis for the philosophy of
Deleuze. It is the foundation on which concepts and methods could
be established and not on the foundation of conceptualization nor
methodology. This plane of immanence is the main grounds of
argument in determining the ontological phases of human perception
and cinematic perception-image.
Perception-image is formed when human interests, utility or
camera viewpoints are subtracted from the plane of immanence of
imagery. Therefore both perception and image belong to the same

: 2006. 4. 27 / : 2006. 5. 19
270

realm of reality. The same goes for cinematic perception-image. Then

in the theory of Deleuze, we must discuss all images, human
perception and cinematic perception at the same level of reality.
Deleuze endows ontological grade to these perception-images existing
in reality. He does this in accordance to the relation of perception-
images to the plane of immanence. Especially through the analysis of
Vertov’s cinema in his three analysis of perception-images, Deleuze
insists that cinematic perception-images are superior to human
perception. The reason is because cinematic perception-images are
arguably closer to the plane of immanence than human perception.

Keywords: Image, plane of immanence, perception-image,

mouvement-image, perception-image of cinema