> I always thought McLuhan was deeply confused about this matter, but in any
> case, ever since "movies" have been shown on TV for over 50 years, hasn't this
> question been answered? Don't the members of this list assume they've seen a
> particular film, even if it's on a small glowing screen? Or an iPhone?
> Chuck Kleinhans
Hi Chuck and Henry, from what I remember re McLuhan, it's the medium itself
that is hot or cool and precisely not the content (which may have arisen in
an other medium, like the film of the opera of the book); this is to do with
the nature of the medium mostly in the sense of what we now would call
'resolution', that is: to what extent the image (say) needs to be completed
or participated in for its understanding, recognition etc. Thus the medium
of cartoon sketches is cool (little in the image to go on thus lots of
participation by the viewer) whereas the medium of film/cinema is hot (we
just lay back before the silver screen and have a high resolution dream).
I'm very rusty on old McLuhan, but I think he is still worth mining,
especially with regard to our brand spanking new little gizmos, the
hinternet the universe and everything...
regards
michael pennamacoor
> From: "Henry M. Taylor" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: The media hot and cold
> Could it be argued, following McLuhan's notion of cool and hot media, that
> film - formerly termed 'movies' and a hot medium - since its separation from
> the cinema as its premier site of reception has today effectively become a
> cool medium?
> Thanks for your ideas!
> Henry --
--
To manage your subscription or unsubscribe from the Film-Philosophy list, please visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
--
Film-Philosophy Journal: http://www.film-philosophy.com/
Film-Philosophy Conference (London 12 - 14 September 2012): http://www.film-philosophy.com/conference/
--
|