Paul Meilia wrote: "There seems to be an assumption informing a few
postings that form and content are not only separable but also in
opposition to one another. If you subscribe to this belief then a whole
series of questions can be posed (such as, "can we attend to form without
content?"). Sometimes the problems we fret over are a simply consequence
of the language we employ."
[...]
"What happens if we use the terms signifier/signifiedč instead
of 'form/content'? We would have to recognise that signifier and signified
are materially _inseparable_. We'd also have to recognise that neither the
signified nor the signifier are _anterior_ to the sign. So we can't speak
of a signifier waiting to be 'filled' by a signified, or a signified
waiting for expression through a signifier."
I am not sure the parallel to semiotical equation of 'signifier/signified'
is perfectly appropriate, because doesn't the term 'sonata' signify a form
rather than a specific piece of music--notes on a page have an infinite
number of combinations and permutations, the term 'sonata' just makes this
number finite. Also, content (unlike the signifier or signified (depending
on your semiotician)) can exist in the absence of form--if the 'form' you
are talking about is a means of classifying the content. For a form
like 'sonata', the process of developing within the form is a dynamic one,
and one that stretches the boundaries of the form in different ways. It is
through this dynamic process that the concept of sonata is constructed and
propagated. I am not sure that the term 'sonata' has any overt effect on
the listener to the piece, unless he is listening to see how well the
piece fits into the sonata form, and judging it accordingly (certainly
something usually done in the 18th and 19th centuries). Form as
classification is a secondary level of meaning, is abstracted from
the 'reality' of the composing content in order to gather it together for
conceptualization--it has little to do with the 'meaning' of this content
on many levels, though it does, once established, inform the creation of
them.
On the level of film genre, I think this type of form is radically
different from numerical form. Numerical form is not dynamic--the number 3
always means the three of something (or one race car driver, football
player, baseball player, etc), so the rules are always set. With genre, it
is the dynamic process of classifying _Alien_ as suspence / horror / sci-
fi, existential drama, etc that goes to inform the system of
classification. But, taking the difference between suspence and horror,
and speaking to the effect on the filmgoer...I can say anecdotely that I
will not go see a movie advertised as horror (have a specific emotional
reaction to it based on childhood experience) and I would go see a
suspense film--even though they are much the same in many situations.
Best, JohnAW
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask]
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
**
|