On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Chris Gooch <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> The medium of cinema is the image, as the medium of the novel is words.
> However champions of sound may disagree of course...
Once again, what do you mean by "medium"? The notion of the "medium"
is tied up in history of attempts to differentiate artforms from one
another. Each was supposed to have a distinct medium that defined
it's essence. The thinking has it that this essence informs what one
should try to accomplish in the artform.
If you say that the medium of literature is words, this tells you next
to nothing. It certainly doesn't get you distinctness: songs, operas,
plays, and films also use words.
Similarly, if you say that the medium of cinema is the image, then
this too tells you next to nothing. It certainly doesn't get you
distinctness: paintings, photographs, and literature can use pictures.
And it ignores the obvious point that films are also made of sounds.
Some might claim that editing is more important. . . .
If you simply mean that you can't have a work of literature without
words and that you can't have a movie without an image, then this
might be true. I kind of doubt it, but it doesn't really get you very
much. It doesn't tell us anything about what filmmakers and novelists
should try to do. But that seems about right. Let them do what they
want. . . .
Unless we can get clear about what we mean by "medium", perhaps we
should stop using it. It brings in all sorts of muddled baggage. And
it doesn't do any clear explanatory or normative work.
Aaron
*
*
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]
**
|