Michael Fried's essay that introduced the concept of theatricality is
"Art and Objecthood" (first published in Arforum, 1967), in the same
titled edition /Art and and Objecthood. Essays and Reviews /The
University of Chicago Press 1998, 148-172. The reference to film is on
page 164.
The concept of absorption was introduced in Michael Fried's /Absorption
and Theatricality. Painting and Beholder in the Age of Diderot /The
University of Chicago Press, 1980
The concept of absorption is much more ambivalent and ambiguous as it
seems to be at first sight. The book is about the beginnings of art
criticisms in France. The way I understood it, it's more about the wish
to create works that enable absorption, which becomes apparent in the
art work and in the criticism. The works created in opposition to rococo
and baroque art try to make sure that they don't address the beholder as
obstrusively as the rococo art did. So the paintings often have sujets
of people who are totally immersed in what they are doing. Fried seems
to be interested in the emergence of a discourse on absorption, but in
this book he doesn't suggest that some works are better suited to create
absorption than others.
But still, it is a very interesting concept. There is an interesting
essay by Richard Rushton who used the concept of absorption for film and
for early cinema (theatrical cinema), classical cinema (non-theatrical
cinema) and art cinema (anit-theatrical cinema) though I don't agree
with him on this distinction, because it does not take into account that
modern cinema has some problematic aspects of theartricality.
(Rushton's essay "Early, classical, and modern cinema: absorption and
theatricality" appeared in Screen 45 (2004) No. 3.)
Herbert
Frank, Michael schrieb:
>
> *can anyone cite a reference for this work by fried??*
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Herbert Schwaab
> Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 4:39 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: new semester, new question, new thread
>
>
>
> Sure, the distinction between active/passive is misleading. But there
>
> are different forms of passiveness.
>
>
>
> In his writings on modern art Michael Fried invents the concept of
>
> theatricality and absorption. He claims that good art leaves the
>
> impression of not needing to be behold, whereas minimal art and
>
> conceptual art make explicit that they need the beholder, that the
>
> reception is staged in a space and situation. He sketches a positive,
>
> non-theatrical form of reception - it is also a form of passiveness -
>
> which offers closure and presentness of the artwork (I think there are
>
> some crossing points with Gestalttheorie or with classicist aesthetics
>
> such as Lessings Laookoon). Later he introduces the concept of
>
> absorption for non-theatrical art forms.
>
>
>
> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
>
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
>
> **
>
> * * 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] Or visit:
> http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For help email:
> [log in to unmask], not the salon. * Film-Philosophy online:
> http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] **
*
*
Film-Philosophy 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]
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|