On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:43:02 +0100 James Churchouse
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Why not reinvent the wheel when it keeps steering you into
sludge?
> When these tightly related intersubjective categories are
> destabilized, doesn't the exchange of objects become irrelevant?
Souriau's categories can be thought of as a means to an end, of
moving the discussion onward, and then left behind once the
discussion has progressed, much like Wittgenstein's 'ladder'
argument. However, both Damian Sutton and James Churchouse (on the
basis of their contributions to the discussion) are still looking
for the bottom of the ladder. I've been familiar with Souriau's
seven categories for a few years, yet still haven't thought
through all the implications his work can bring to
contemporary debates in film studies. Sutton and particularly
Churchouse are a bit too quick to dismiss Souriau. Or perhaps I'm
just a slow reader and thinker .... (Didn't Nietzsche argue that
the main aim of philosophy is to teach the art of slow reading and
thinking?)
Finally, in response to Michael Chanan's query, Souriau's 1951
essay hasn't, as far as I know, been translated into English.
Those who find Souriau's categories of interest will find a short
discussion of them in English in Edward Lowery's book _The
Filmology Movement and Film Study in France_ (UMI Research Press,
1985): 84-86.
Warren Buckland
Liverpool John Moores University
Dean Walters Building
St James Road
Liverpool
L1 7BR
ENGLAND.
+44 (0)151 231 5111
The Cognitive Semiotics of Film, available from
Cambridge University Press:
http://www.cup.cam.ac.uk/scripts/webbook.asp?isbn=0521780055
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|