Transparency here really doesn't have anything to do with perceiving the
screen/frame as phenomenal window or to any kind of looking-like
relationship between image and object (except maybe to the extent some
notion of looking-like might be involved in being a picture at all). The
transparency is ontological and a very blurry image wouldn't compromise
the claim that one is actually seeing long-dead gramps when seeing the
picture.
The causal relationship with the sensor isn't really that different than
the relationship with film (though maybe the use of Bayer arrays makes
digi images that use them a bit harder to describe). I'd think that
post=processing of selections, whether through analog dodging and
burning or digital curve adjustments the like, compromises transparency,
though I don't think global adjustments do (for the same reason that
exposure, framing, etc. do not). Actually I think Walton has claimed
that mechanical systematic painting procedures, somewhat like that used
by Chuck Close, would maintain transparency.
j
On 10/27/10 8:13 PM, Dan Barnett wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> ----------MB_8CD444C068A8EEC_CA4_72CA_webmail-m035.sysops.aol.com
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In reference to John Matturi=E2=80=99s post concerning Kendall Walton and t=
> o a degree Mike Frank=E2=80=99s various.
> At peril here - not having read the Walton Article - but it seems to me as =
> if the digitization of the image
> has blown this entire issue out of the water. Also, certainly there is noth=
> ing
> new in seeing the movie screen as transparent? The transparency of the scre=
> en
> is the given, not its existence as object. What is the shift that happens
> between a photograph as object and a movie screen as a window, that renders=
> the
> former remarkable? Is it the exclusive focus? Is it the component of motion=
> ? Is
> it the subliminal flicker?
> Again at my peril not remembering my Grice, ref. distinctions of causality =
> and intentionality: the
> digitization of the image raises so many layers of causality/intentionality=
> questions
> that the whole debate starts to lose relevance: I would dare say that more
> minutes of footage have been produced by machine, with one level of causal =
> intention
> (existence and framing) and another that is completely random: the actual
> content of the image(CCTV surveillance etc.).The causal chain between objec=
> t
> and image has been compromised forever. The distinction between a photograp=
> h
> and a painting is gone out the window with photoshop.
>
>
> I think it would help this
> discussion if we watched our language a little more closely. In normal
> conversation-speak we don=E2=80=99t get into problems of ontology while dis=
> tinguishing among
> photographs, paintings, images and pictures. When just talking among our se=
> lves
> we don=E2=80=99t usually say =E2=80=9Cthis photo says=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D whi=
> le we often say =E2=80=9CThis photograph
> shows.=E2=80=9D When we do say =E2=80=9Cthis photo
> says=E2=80=9D I would wager that the context is explicitly one of veracity,=
> as in a
> courtroom situation, or as ammunition in a polemic.
> Nevertheless questions about the ontological status of images seem endemic =
> on the turf of F-P. Is it
> because we believe these distinctions can be mined for new levels of meanin=
> g in
> media? I would say yes.=20
> I suspect that the vast majority of you would say no.
> At least those who speak up. It
> often appears from the tenor of the comments that for the most part you all=
> conceive
> of film and digital cinema as having no worthwhile elements of significatio=
> n
> embedded in their distinction.
>
>
> Whereas for me, on a philosophical level, this distinction is primal. On th=
> e levels of ontology and epistemology the shifts in signification are a hug=
> e potential resource.
>
>
> This is your world Damian
> is it not? What say yee.
>
>
> The ontology of the image
> hit me very directly once when I stumbled onto a sight that I had always
> inferred but never observed. The first time I projected a 35mm print I look=
> ed
> into the space between the film gate and the rear element of the projection
> lens and saw the image traveling upside down, directly illuminated in the a=
> rc
> of the projector. The intermittent movement of the machine was producing th=
> e
> illusion of a motion-picture, but I was looking directly at the unlensed su=
> bstrate. It was the
> heart of lightness iterated.=20
> db
>
>
>
>
>
>
> =20
>
> *
> *
> 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]
> **
>
> ----------MB_8CD444C068A8EEC_CA4_72CA_webmail-m035.sysops.aol.com
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8"
>
> <font color=3D'black' size=3D'2' face=3D'Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif'>
> <div style=3D"font-family:helvetica,arial;font-size:10pt;color:black">
> <div id=3D"AOLMsgPart_4_ec895e82-b016-4145-ac8e-c1aa848bbf2c" style=3D"marg=
> in: 0px;font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif;font-size: 12px;col=
> or: #000;background-color: #fff;"><pre style=3D"font-size: 9pt;"><tt>
> </tt>
> <!--StartFragment-->
>
>
> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:Courier">In reference t=
> o John</span><font class=3D"Apple-style-span" face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, san=
> s-serif"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-size: small;"> </sp=
> an></font><span style=3D"font-family:Courier">Matturi=E2=80=99s post concer=
> ning Kendall Walton and to a degree Mike Frank=E2=80=99s various.<o:p></o:p=
>> </span></div>
> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-fam=
> ily: Courier; ">At peril here</span><font class=3D"Apple-style-span" face=
> =3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D=
> "font-size: small;"> -</span></font><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=
> =3D"font-family: Courier; "> not having</span><font class=3D"Apple-style-sp=
> an" face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" =
> style=3D"font-size: small;"> r</span></font><span style=3D"font-family:Cour=
> ier">ead the Walton Article - but it seems to me as if the digitization of =
> the image</span></div>
>
> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:Courier">has blown this=
> entire issue out of the water. Also, certainly there is nothing
> new in seeing the movie screen as transparent? The transparency of the scre=
> en
> is the given, not its existence as object. What is the shift that happens
> between a photograph as object and a movie screen as a window, that renders=
> the
> former remarkable? Is it the exclusive focus? Is it the component of motion=
> ? Is
> it the subliminal flicker?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
>
> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:Courier">Again at my pe=
> ril not</span><font class=3D"Apple-style-span" face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sa=
> ns-serif"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-size: small;"> </s=
> pan></font><span style=3D"font-family:Courier">remembering my Grice, ref. d=
> istinctions of causality and intentionality: the
> digitization of the image raises so many layers of causality/intentionality=
> questions
> that the whole debate starts to lose relevance: I would dare say that more
> minutes of footage have been produced by machine, with one level of causal =
> intention
> (existence and framing) and another that is completely random: the actual
> content of the image(CCTV surveillance etc.).The causal chain between objec=
> t
> and image has been compromised forever. The distinction between a photograp=
> h
> and a painting is gone out the window with photoshop.<o:p></o:p></span></di=
> v>
>
>
> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-fam=
> ily: Courier; ">I think it would help this</span></div>
>
> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:Courier">discussion if =
> we watched our language a little more closely. In normal
> conversation-speak we don=E2=80=99t get into problems of ontology while dis=
> tinguishing among
> photographs, paintings, images and pictures. When just talking among our se=
> lves
> we don=E2=80=99t usually say =E2=80=9Cthis photo says=E2=80=A6=E2=80=9D whi=
> le we often say =E2=80=9CThis photograph
> shows.=E2=80=9D<span style=3D"mso-spacerun: yes"> </span>When we do s=
> ay =E2=80=9Cthis photo
> says=E2=80=9D I would wager that the context is explicitly one of veracity,=
> as in a
> courtroom situation, or as ammunition in a polemic.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
>
> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-fam=
> ily: Courier; ">Nevertheless questions</span><font class=3D"Apple-style-spa=
> n" face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" s=
> tyle=3D"font-size: small;"> </span></font><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" =
> style=3D"font-family: Courier; ">about the ontological status of images see=
> m endemic on the turf of F-P. Is it</span></div>
>
> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:Courier">because we bel=
> ieve these distinctions can be mined for new levels of meaning in
> media? I would say yes. </span></div>
>
> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:Courier">I suspect that=
> the vast majority of you would say no.</span></div>
>
> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><font class=3D"Apple-style-span" face=3D"Arial, He=
> lvetica, sans-serif"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-size: s=
> mall;">A</span></font><span style=3D"font-family:Courier">t least those who=
> speak up</span><font class=3D"Apple-style-span" face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, =
> sans-serif"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-size: small;">.<=
> /span></font><span style=3D"font-family:Courier"> It
> often appears from the tenor of the comments that for the most</span><font=
> class=3D"Apple-style-span" face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span cla=
> ss=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-size: small;">p</span></font><span st=
> yle=3D"font-family:Courier">art you all conceive
> of film and digital cinema as having no worthwhile elements of significatio=
> n
> embedded in their distinction.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
>
> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:Courier"><br>
> </span></div>
>
> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><font class=3D"Apple-style-span" face=3D"Arial, He=
> lvetica, sans-serif"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-size: s=
> mall;">Whereas for me, on a philosophical level, this distinction is primal=
> . On the levels of ontology and epistemology the shifts in signification ar=
> e a huge potential resource.</span></font></div>
>
>
> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:Courier">This is your w=
> orld Damian
> is it not? What say yee.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
>
>
> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-fam=
> ily: Courier; ">The ontology of the image</span></div>
>
> <div class=3D"MsoNormal"><span style=3D"font-family:Courier">hit me very di=
> rectly once when I stumbled onto a sight that I had always
> inferred but never observed. The first time I projected a 35mm print I look=
> ed
> into the space between the film gate and the rear element of the projection
> lens and saw the image traveling upside down, directly illuminated in the a=
> rc
> of the projector. The intermittent movement of the machine was producing th=
> e
> illusion</span><font class=3D"Apple-style-span" face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, s=
> ans-serif"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-size: small;"> of=
> a motion-picture</span></font><span style=3D"font-family:Courier">, but I =
> was looking directly at the unlensed substrate. It was the
> heart of lightness iterated.</span></div>
> <font class=3D"Apple-style-span" face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><spa=
> n class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-size: small;"> db</span></font>
>
> <!--EndFragment-->
>
>
>
> </pre>
> </div>
> <!-- end of AOLMsgPart_4_ec895e82-b016-4145-ac8e-c1aa848bbf2c -->
>
>
>
> </div>
> </font>
> *
> *
> 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 technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon
> *
> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
> Contact: [log in to unmask]
> **
> ----------MB_8CD444C068A8EEC_CA4_72CA_webmail-m035.sysops.aol.com--
>
*
*
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]
**
|
