ACT 0 EPHEMERA NARRATIVE FIELDWORK EROS, ALWAYS ALREADY ACT 1 EPISODE 1 SCENE 1 SCENE 2 SCENE 3 EPISODE 2 SCENE 4 SCENE 5 SCENE 6 EPISODE 3 SCENE 7 SCENE 8 SCENE 9 ACT 2 EPISODE 4 SCENE 10 SCENE 11 SCENE 12 EPISODE 5 SCENE 13 SCENE 14 SCENE 15 EPISODE 6 SCENE 16 SCENE 17 SCENE 18 EPISODE 7 SCENE 19 SCENE 20 SCENE 21 ACT 3 EPISODE 8 SCENE 22 SCENE 23 SCENE 24 EPISODE 9 SCENE 25 SCENE 26 SCENE 27 EPISODE 10 SCENE 28 SCENE 29 SCENE 30 EPISODE 11 SCENE 31 SCENE 32 SCENE 33

❠

Act 1: EPISODES 1 - 3

Agile Cinema® as Iterative Mythology in Three Episodes. Agile Cinema® adapts the iterative logic of software development to moving image and cultural production—not to replicate its tools, but to recode its spirit. Here, the prototype is not a product but a proposition. The method is not linear but recursive. Agile Cinema® works with fragments: media elements that slip between fiction and document, speculation and strategy, fantasy and form. It begins with ephemera: unfinished images, partial scripts, circulating gestures—each activated differently in each context. A collage might serve as a cinematic relic, a commercial provocation, or a ritual object. Nothing is fixed. Meaning migrates. Form is promiscuous. This is not media-as-message—it is media-in-motion. Act 1 unfolds through three episodes—stylized transmissions that test how image behaves when routed through different cultural operating systems. Each episode is a site of reformatting: where cinema stretches across domains and disciplines, and where circulation itself becomes a medium of meaning.

1. Decoration, Ornament, Structure: Toward a Topological Aesthetics

The boundaries between decoration, ornament, and structure are neither fixed nor categorical; rather, they slip into one another through processes of transformation, displacement, and recontextualization. This continuum is best understood as a topological field—one in which surface, volume, and form continuously reassign their functions. Pictures drape over figures, walls behave like textiles, and machine production models both repetition and the proliferation of “informal” taste. Hand-made or “handy” production becomes a mode of presence and address, registering a kind of proximate authorship within surfaces that are otherwise expected to remain mute. Rug. Curtain. Wall. Low relief. Layer. Context. The question emerges: when did surface articulation as such become synonymous with painting?

In architecture, ornament may be integral to a building’s operation—color, for instance, can modulate temperature or designate functional zones—yet ornament is never structurally required. As one moves from large-scale chromatic fields to finer surface articulations, the distinction between structural coloration and decorative painting thins to the point of conceptual collapse. Ornament becomes decoration not when it ceases to matter, but when its relation to structure becomes one of adjacency rather than necessity.

Balthasar Neumann’s Residenz Palace at Würzburg exemplifies this shift. The vegetal motifs that proliferate across its surfaces confer no added structural integrity; nonetheless, they materialize a non-pejorative form of décor—one that is, paradoxically, both the freest and most constrained artistic system within the built environment. Décor is liberated by its lack of obligation to hold anything up, and yet imprisoned by its relegation to the merely supplementary. Taking décor seriously thus requires recognizing it as a site in which artistic agency operates under both maximal freedom and maximal contingency.