Says mike:
> there seems one easy, but no doubt preliminary, answer to this . . .
> images qua images, at least representational images [and absent
> conventionalized and thus inherently linguistic markers, such as the circle
> with a diagonal as the signal for DO NOT] are incapable of negation . . .
> they are also likely incapable of abstraction or generalization . . . a
> film cannot represent tree it can only show a specific tree, an oak or a
> pine, or a cedar but never tree as a category . . .it would thus be
> impossible for one striking example to discuss plato through images
> because the image always represents the thing hes not talking about . . .
> by the same token i dont see how film can articulate principles, rules,
> conceptions
>
> of course films might very easily embody or exemplify any of the above,
> but without the support of or framing by ordinary language how could they
> philosophize . . .
>
> by the same or a similartoken, films might become so conventionalized in
> their semiotic force that they turn into a series of essentially symbolic
> [in the piercian sense] articulations, no longer anchored in material
> reality at allas was the case with hieroglyphics . . . in that case what
> were talking about is just another language, albeit one that works through
> moving images on a screen
>
> but this seems all too obvious so i must be missing something, and no
> doubt ill soon find out what
Yes, mike, but even philosophical speech speaks this or that but mayhap
*shows* what it *says*; similarly, film might speak this or that (a concrete
meaningful image or sequence of images or situation or event, as something
re-presented) but *shows* something else that is not 'seen' (is not an
image, not a re-presentation, but a presentation, a presenting of a
presence, a presencing). I think this comes across to some extent in
Malick's Thin Red Line... It is not just concepts and categories and
Platonic Idea (not ideas), etc, that philosophy thinks with but the
conceptualising of concepts (not its self a concept), the appearing of
appearances (not its self an appearance, the presencing of what is present
or presented, etc). Yes, I'm a Heideggerian. How film might do this (a kind
of thinking {of} being) may not be what the director or film-maker intends
or considers or theorises, but film, like any art, can achieve this anyway
(rarely, but sometimes). All speaking (in the sense of articulating) hides
what it says (the bringing forth of be-ing {of some being}) and thus (in a
negative manner) shows something (the presencing of a being).
regards
michaelP
*
*
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]
**
|