I don't see why all this "demistification" fuss Ted is making about
"definitions".
Definitions, of course, are not needed for recognition. They are part
of (theoretical) communication mostly about the already commonly recognized
occurences.
I also doubt that anyone mistakes a definition for a well developed
theoretical piece. A theory commonly invest a lot of arguments in specifying
and explaining its recognition of its subject, usually leaving many
important aspects yet unanalyzed. Why assume that anyone assume a definition
has more specification power then evolved theory, that it theoretically
"exhaust" the subject, and then fight such "pretensions"?
Like lables, definitions function mostly as a kind of pointer, as orienting
landmarks, just generally marking the attention field for further
consideration. They are usually just an instrumental proviso. They are
needed just occasionally.
And, when we are at "landmark" metaphor, definitions are the best landmarks
when they are trivial, when it is quite evident what they indicate.
Nontrivial definitions beg for further elaboration. And definitions are the
best when they do not generate larger problems and further confusion - i.e.
when they are precise and adequate enough for the occasion.
Their triviallity is sanitary in all cases of possible communication
confusion, and those are the moments when they are mostly needed, and mostly
employed. E.g. when Kathleen is faced with uncommon talk about CNN news
being "movies", she asks for definition, or redefinition of what the "film"
is. And her question triggered all this discusion on "What is a film"? What
will be forgrounded in particular definition is usually determined by the
controversial point: if I point out the film
as temporaly ordered discourse, it is not with the intention to "define"
film exhaustivelly, but to clear up the point Jeff had raised. When there is
no drastic confusion what we are talking about, there is no need for
definitions.
Triviality of definitions is sanitary from another point of view too.
Recognition bussiness (experiencing films) is something complitely different
from theoreticall bussiness, and not easilly accessible to it. It is easy to
be disoriented when one approaches theoretically to film (to one's
experiences with films: I have enough my own expiriences with such momentary
disorientations, and I am facing such disorientations in my students
regularly), and it is very likely that some of the most common feats of
recognition, of experience, would be missed by theoretical elaboration, not
seen at all, or seen out of relation. It is incomparably easier for a theory
to concentrate on un-common occurences and features because they are usually
easily noticable. That's a reason why so much of a classical esthetic theory
was acctually a rethorical figure theory, theory of stylizations, of
stylistically marked features, not of film basics. So, it is sanitary to
point out the most common features times and again, and to remind a
theoretical camp what is the range of film phenomena against which our
theoretical generalisations have to be checked.
Now, of course, definitions may not be just landmarks, proviso instruments,
but become essential component of a theory. Namely, they may become a
strategic "catalist" of an argument, as it is common in analitical
philosophy. One starts with a definition, then questions its plausability by
facing it with counterexamples, then tries reformulation, questions the
reformulation again etc. Such procedure may seem like a chase for "precise"
definition, but it is actually a substantial theoretical elaboration of
different relevant aspects of researched subject, where definitions serve
just as argument trigers. What counts as explanation of its subject in
speculative analysis of this kind is the whole theoretical discourse, not
just its definition parts. And, I think, that is what Jeff and I have been
doing: not trying to fix an impeachable definition of film, but to bring out
some important points and arguments by questioning particular definition
formulations, and by dealing with question-begging examples.
Hrvoje
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 08. siječanj 1999. 01:30
Subject: RE: What is a film?
>>j.daigle:
>
>>For example, I could argue that the "non-film" projector image is a film
>>because it contained "image" as defined by the use of light and dark
>>(admittedly little for the former and much of the latter) and time, as it
>>was set to run for a length of time as delineated in the program. Was it
>>GOOD film? That's another question wholly divisible from the essential
>>question of its "film-ness" or lack thereof.
>>
>>The best argument in favor of a broad definition is that it has several
>>advantages over the lack of a definition.
>>
>>1. A broad definition allows you to know what you're talking about.
Without
>>such a definition, I can say that Leonardo da Vinci's "Last Supper" or
even
>>his last supper were (or are) great films. How can we say that they are
not
>>without a general definition of what we mean by "film"?<
>
>
>We don't need a definition of film to know this and, as I pointed out, any
>such defintion is judged to be adequate or not against our ordinary
>understanding and use of the term.
>
>
>>2. A broad definition allows categorization and extension to proceed in
>>manner such that it is comprehendable. It is one thing to say that we
would
>>not be able to survive if we required minute facial recognition of other
>>people and were incapable of tracking light and movement over time, it is
>>quite another to say that we would have evolved without general
definitions
>>of edible and inedible, predator and prey, and the ability to distinguish
>>these things from rocks or water.
>
>
> These do not depend on precise definitions - plenty of cultures pass on
>knowledge without having a precise definitions of the terms used. I
>suspect few Latin American men could give you a precise definition of
>"macho" - important as it has been in their culture.
>
>
>>3. A broad definition allows challenging pieces of work to be discussed in
>>their abscence... a piece might combine "filmic" elements with
"sculptural"
>>elements, or be projected on a "photograph." These words require
>>definitions in order for the conversation to make sense.
>
>Worse still. Clearly we have had years of illuminating discussions of
>films, photographs , etc without a precise defintion of "photograph",
>"filmic" - the latter implies an evaluative element by the way.
>
>>The argument that we already have a "cultural understanding" begs the
>>question of what that "cultural understanding" is, if not a general
>>definition? And if we have a cultural understanding, what exactly is it?
>>How can it exist if we cannot describe it?
>
> We develop the ability to use our native language in practice, NOT through
>reading the dictionary. I assume you can use the word "table" in normal
>conversation quite adequately - give me a precise definition of the word.
>
>
>>"Art" by the way, is an intuitive style of decision making. A painting, or
>>a film, is evidence that such a process took place (or not, depending on
>>the critic).
>
>Art *can* be intuitive, but it can also be a highly rational process (e.g.
>academic painting involving complex perspective, the conscious expression
>of ideas, etc.). This comment betrays a rather uncritical acceptance of the
>Romantic view of art.
>
>
>>Turkovic's definition: I.E. that film requires a temporal dimension, is a
>>good one, although I would add the neccesity of a monitor or projection
>>surface on which to percieve the image, images, light, or darkness.
>
>Turkovic's "definition" is nowhere near defining "film" - it is a banality
>which applies to many things apart from film - reading this "requires a
>temporal dimension". Your more specific additions are likely to be outmoded
>by technological developments - and I do not see how they add to our
>discussion films in ways that go beyond our normal use of the word 'film".
>
>
>>Are we critics? Or are we philosophers? The critic discusses personal
>>opinion within a presumed understanding of general culture or history. The
>>Philosopher defines ideas.
>
>Your description of a critic applies equally to a philsopher (they DO have
>personal opinions). The philosopher doesn't just "define" ideas . Try
>again :-)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Ted Welch, lecturer and webmaster
>School of Communication, Design and Media
>University of Westminster, London, UK
>http://www.wmin.ac.uk/media
>web designer of http://www.frontlinetv.com
>European Society History Photography: http://www.wmin.ac.uk/media/ESHP
>Case of sacked CNN producers: http://www.wmin.ac.uk/media/tailwind
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
