D.Sutton ...
Why?
I like this quote by Michel Foucault ...
"What surprises me is the fact that, in our society, art has become
something that has to do only with objects, rather than individuals,
or life... Yet, couldn’t the life of each individual become a work of
art?"
I think we can, and I would, replace both "individual" and "life" in
the above quote with "cinema" and "film" ....
I think we can think our way back to the Greeks and understand, or
re-understand, "art" as "techne" -- "the art of doing something well"
-- to put it roughly -- and, more than this, re-realize that "art" is
the world -- not something separate, and "art" makes the/a world, it
is a process of world-making, and film does this, and some films do
such an art, as art, as techne, very well.
-Robert
Robert Summers, PhD
Lecturer ABD: Art History
Liberal Arts and Sciences Dept.
Otis College of Art and Design
9045 Lincoln Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA. 90045
e: [log in to unmask]
t: 310.665.6800
Confidentiality Notice:
This communication (including attachments) is covered by the
Electronic Communication Privacy Act, U.S.C . Sec. 2510-2521, is
confidential, intended solely for the addressee, and may contain
privileged information. Any dissemination, distribution, or forwarding
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the
intended recipient or if you believe you may have received this
communication in error, please do not print, copy, retransmit,
disseminate, or otherwise use this communication or any of the
information contained herein. Please notify the sender that you have
received this communication in error and delete the copy you received.
Access, copying or re-use of the e-mail or any information contained
therein by any other person is not authorized.
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 1:49 AM, D.Sutton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Films are not artworks. Film is not art.
> Best
> Damian
>
>
> On 5/25/09 10:37 PM, "Aaron Smuts" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Frank, Michael <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> have a better candidate??
>>>
>>
>> artworks
>>
>> When we are talking about movies, we can call them "movies." When we
>> are talking about poems, we can call them "poems." If we are talking
>> about a works that appear to be hybrids, we can call them "works" or
>> create some kind of hyphenated label. It doesn't matter much.
>>
>> My primary concern is with the literary analogy. Calling movies
>> "texts" suggests that we can treat them like novels. In some ways we
>> can and in other ways we can't. Calling them texts obscures the
>> differences. It's not all that big of an issue. I've called moves
>> "texts", but I'm afraid that it leads to talk about the "language of
>> film" which I find very obscure and very misleading.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> 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]
>> **
>
> *
> *
> 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]
> **
>
*
*
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]
**
|