> Regarding truth claims of the visual, a line from the 1990 noir
> thriller, Blindside:
"Photographs lie; diagrams tell the truth."
DH
> Topics of the week:
>
> 1. Yet Another New Thread)
>
> *
> *
> Film-Philosophy
> 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 technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
> *
> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> **
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:59:27 +1100
> From: Ross Macleay <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: Yet Another New Thread)
>
> John & Mike both raise points that are important. We are not far
> apart.
> I am not sure though that my contention that a shot is used to make a
> truth claim is only terminological. It follows from the fact that
> shots
> have a truth value that we can have a logic of film: true or false
> propositions, entailment relations, valid arguments etc. Without such
> logical means film could make narrative arguments.
>
> My reply to John is that a shot is used as an intentional (or
> non-natural) sign with, if you like, all the nesting of intentions
> that
> Grice identifies in his theory of meaning. A shot is used with the
> intention of making a truth claim. (I also a agree that a shot is a
> bit
> of non-intentional stuff that has a causal relation to whatever it's
> actual footage of.)
>
> To Mike: Not only evidence or illustration but truth claim. I agree
> that
> a shot is embedded in discourse - historically all shots are embedded
> in a world of linguistic (and other) propositions - but this is
> precisely how truth is defined in its sense as 'coherence with other
> truths'.
>
> As for 'specific referential relationship' actual footage is the
> epitome
> of truth defined as 'correspondence between proposition and the
> world'.
>
> Maybe none of these things is inherent in the shot itself, but what
> is
> inherent in a sentence?
>
> Ross
>
>>
*
*
Film-Philosophy
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 technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**
|