>>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.
>Okay... Leonardo Da Vinci's "Last Supper" although not commonly recognized
>as such, is a fantastic film. Compared to other great films of the time, it
>combined elements of light and dark in new and exciting ways, while still
>dealing with a subject matter and plot that were familiar to the audience.
>I give it two thumbs up.
>Without defining film (even broadly), the only way to refute that
>statement is by simple denial, i.e. "no, it isn't."
>However, I could, in a logical debate, defeat that argument to the
>satisfaction of any body juris by defining film as "a visual display." If
>film is a visual diplay of any kind, than "The Last Supper" is a film. If
>you restrict the definition of film, even to the extent of saying that film
>is NOT simply a visual display, you have amended a definition and therefore
>created one.<
First I would assume that you were not a native speaker of English. Then I
would assume that you were either joking or using the term metaphorically.
If you insisted you were using it literally I would wonder about your
mental health.
>Rational discourse is simply impossible without recognizable defintions of
>words. Someone asked what we mean by saying "film" so clearly there is no
>"ordinary understanding" that EVERYONE has, therefore, as harbingers of
>rational discourse and "film-philosophers" we owe the querent a reply that
>adds to their understanding of the term. <
Somebody asked about an unusual use, where someone used "movie" ( I
think, same point if it was "film") of TV news coverage, to make a point
about news as entertainment and propaganda. The enquirer's puzzlement was
precisely because they *did* understand the normal use of "film" or "movie"
perfectly well, hence the puzzlement at this non-standard use of the term.
Puzzlement easily removed by explaining the reason for the use, not by
defining film..
"Rational discussion" of films has taken place for years by many people who
have never offered a definition of "film".
>>>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.
>>
>
>Actually, there is a word "Machismo," and it is intricately tied up in
>their definition of what it means to be a man. <
Actually the word used - "macho" is defined (since you're so interested,
and it shows how unilluminating such things are) in Collins Concise
Dictionary, for example, as n. "a strong or virile man. - adj. strongly or
exaggeratedly masculine". While "machismo' is defined as" n. strong or
exaggerated masculinity" (from Spanish, macho - male)". OK ? Look up
"masculine" and you get: "possessing qualities or characteristics
considered typical of or appropriate to a man." What is a man ? Apart from
biology, depends on your culture, especially what a "real man" is.
Ask what those qualities and characteristics are and you'll get a list,
which will vary somewhat, but have overlapping similarities (see
Wittgenstein). Lots of respondents would probably answer the question by
saying "Someone like X is macho" and they would have learnt how to USE (as
opposed to how to define) the term by such references to individuals and
observing their typical patterns of behaviour.
Morever you attempt to make your account plausible by using the word
"definition" for their general understanding of what it is to be a man in
their culture.
>This definition involves the
>importance of a number of behaviors, attitudes, etc, and is passed on
>through the generations verbally. So in general, most Latin American men,
>if asked, could come up with a broad, categorical definition for
>"machismo." Certainly most latin american women could do so.
Now we're down to a "broad categorical definition" and I don't deny
that they *could* come up with *some* definition - if pushed for one; only
that their understanding of this concept does not depend on their being
able to give a definition with which they would all agree.
>A PRECISE definition is one thing, while a broad definition is another.
>Precision requires description of minute detail, broad definitions define
>categories and concepts...
Not true - in physics, for example, one can give precise defintions without
giving minute details.
>I'm trying to define apples vs. oranges. You're talking about Granny Smith
>Apples, complaining that a definition of apples that restricts the category
>to Granny Smith apples leaves out the Golden Delecious. My definition of
>apples not only includes all known variety of apples, but could in fact be
>extended to certain variety of pears as well, although certainly not
>grapefruit.
Once again you resort to biology to give plausibility to your account.
Please supply us with a broad definition of "film" (taken from any
"expert") which is going to exclude the grapefruit, as it were, and tell us
anything we didn't understand already.
>>>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?
See the discussion of "macho" above. Try reading Wittgenstein, try Polyani
on "tacit knowing" and Chomsky on language acquisition. It's absurdly
reductionist to label any cultural understanding as a definition.
>> 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.
>A table is a broad, flat surface, generally with a number of "legs," that
>is used to put things on. There are, of course, wide varieties of table,
>such as a coffee table, a dinner table, the legendary "Round Table" and so
>on.
You don't even seem to see things when they are right in front of you,
like the predictable inadequacy (nothing personal) of your attempted
definition, which can be faulted in almost every respect. It doesn't have
to be "broad" (obviously), it doesn't have to be flat (it might be concave,
etc.), as you note it only "generally has legs" (so not very useful), and
we "put things on" many kinds of things - so that doesn't help a lot. None
of this means that you or I normally have any problem using and
understanding how to use the word "table" and neither of us learnt to do so
by learning a definition. Do TRY to understand.
>I can give you a nice, broad, definition of "table," such as to distinguish
>it from "chair."
But you didn't, and I can sit on a table and put things on a chair, etc.
>This is what we do in practice, and how we learn the
>language.
>
>"Mom, (or Dad), what does x mean?"
>"What is that?"
>"Why?"
>
>All of those are questions that beg definitions, and are in fact part of
>learning the language. The dictionary is not the only place definitions
>reside. You, yourself, have a personal definition of film.
Children do NOT normally learn most words in a language by being told
definitions of them. Try Chomsky.
>>>"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.
>>
>>
>
>Actually, this comment recognizes the simple truth that a noun based
>definition or "art" in general must be either be exclusionary or so general
>as to be meaningless. It isn't a pronoun, preposition, adjective or adverb,
>these do not make sense either. Therefore, if the word is to have meaning,
>it must be a verb, and the physical object becomes an "object d'art" or
>more academically, evidence that art took place. A painting is either
>evidence of art or not. If the decisions on how to paint it are not
>intuitive, then the painting simply isn't evidence of "art" as I define the
>term. Without defining "art" you cannot refute my assertion, except, as I
>said before, by simple denial. However that denial may be dressed up in
>discussions of "cultural understanding" or "general use of the term" such
>discussions fall flat without some descriptions (i.e. definitions) of what
>that cultural understanding entails, or what the general use of the term
>is.
This confused stuff seems to miss my point which applied to your assertion
that art is an "intuitive" process - as I pointed out, this is not
necessarily true.
> Therefore, if the word [art] is to have meaning,
>it must be a verb, and the physical object becomes an "object d'art" or
>more academically, evidence that art took place.
This is nonsense - "art" CLEARLY has meaning as a noun - the fact that this
meaning is difficult to pin down in a defintion is no surprise - given what
I've tried to make clear about definitions. It also reflects the fact that
it has come to be thought of as a process which typically involves
innovation and challenging previous defintions of "art" (though this is
only a relatively recent phenomenon, cf. Egyptian 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".
>
>Actually, the novel does not "happen" in time,
*Reading* a novel or e-mail "requires a temporal dimension", just as
*viewing* a film does.
>nor does the email. It can
>all be viewed at once quite easily, and is simply not temporarily based in
>the sense that it takes a period of time to view it, as it would if it were
>a FILM.
E-mails involving thought repay reading (in time) - try it :-) . An
e-mail requires time to *read* rather than glance at (the equivalent of
glancing at a spool of film).
>A film happens over time, has a beginning point and then a period
>of time in which it "happens" then an ending point. Thus all film is
>temporraly based, whereas email, which has a beginning and an end IN SPACE,
>not time, is not.
This is daft - a film - IN SPACE - has a beginning of the first spool and
an end of the last spool - in space. We read a book, an e-mail - in time.
>This adds to our discussion by pointing out that film is different from
>other types of visual expression in that it includes this temporal element,
>and thus, we may discuss how a "live" film, which unfolds in time without a
>definitive end in site [sic] (such as the CNN coverage of Bagdad [sic])
>extends our
>understanding of film without destroying our defintion [sic].
Sigh, a film just takes longer to view than many other forms of
representation - see the records of how people's eyes move over paintings,
photographs IN TIME. The temporal element is not a distinguishing feature -
the illusion of movement is more specific to film - and zoetropes,
flick-books, video, computer animation, etc..
>My definition cannot be outmoded, if, for example, I were to develop a
>holographic art such as they have on "Star Trek" and recreate a version of
>"Much Ado about Nothing" that an audience member could experience in such a
>way as to be part of the caste, it would not be "film" any more than
>Kenneth Branaugh's (it was Branaugh, wasn't it?) "Much Ado about Nothing"
>was theatre.
Oh you can't be wrong huh - do check a defintion of "megalomania" :-) You
sound like the French Academy who tend to want the French language to
ossify.
People say they are going to watch Branagh's "film" tonight - on *TV* or
on *video* - are they wrong ? I don't see why in future we couldn't get a
holographic version of Branagh's FILM.
>What, by the way, is our "normal" use of the word film?
Check, for example, any newspaper film review column, any TV film
programme, etc none of which start with definitions of film, and they
include discussions of films shown on TV and video - and in future ? -
who knows ?
>>>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 :-)
>But the philosopher MUST define ideas, whereas the critic is free from this
>responsibility. If the philosopher does not define ideas, however broadly,
>then he/she is not philosophizing as we normally use the term,
LOL yes, quite "normally USE the term". How many philosophy books start
with or even include a definition of philosophy ? You still haven't given
me yours - despite repeated requests - yet I assume that's what you think
you are engaged in here. Can't you see the obvious contradiction involved ?
but must, in
>fact, be doing something else.
>
>Just becuase someone does something does not mean they do nothing else, a
>definition is not always "precise" or measured, all definitions do not
>reside in dictionaries, all words have definitions.
Flapping around.
>
>You continually talk about our normal, or cultural understanding of film.
>This is a kind of definition. What this thread seems to be about is the
>attempt to explain to each other, in such a way that we can all understand,
>what that is. I say we're talking about image and time combined with
>projection or display. Is there anyone who thinks we're talking about
>something else when we say film? (Besides the event of viewing, but thats
>another, and probably more fruitful, topic.)
Yes, usually, these days, we're also talking about sound- give
technological developments of about 60 years ago. How daft these
generalisations are is indicated by the fact that in trying not to exclude
some obvious films, e.g. silent ones, you've left out the very important
aspect of sound from your definition. You've popped in "display" to cover
possible technical devlopments. But this means that it could include
painting now: - image - display - time (represented and taken to view it -
see again the records of eye-movements over photos and paintings). As I've
pointed out several times, attempted defintions are judged against our
existing understanding of such terms (NOT based on definitions - but, e.g.,
on long experience).
By coincidence, today, Derek Malcolm, the Guardian's (UK daily paper)
film critic for almost thirty years, begins a series on his all-time top
100 films. It's no surprise that he doesn't start out by defining "film".
Nor is it a mistake on his part. He concludes his introduction:
"All I can legitimately say is that, if you saw these 100 films, you would
know roughly what cinema is capable of..."
That expresses it as exactly as you could expect. Unlike you he offers no
definition and certainly not one that he thinks "cannot be outmoded"- for
we have still to see what cinema/film is capable of - even were there to be
no further technological development. "Capable of" involves aspects other
than those covered by the kind of banal generalizations you seem to think
important, aspects that are usually of most importance to us, e.g.,
narrative, character, morals, politics, ideas - even philosophy!
Ted Welch Lecturer in history and theory of the media 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
"Truth Matters" Noam Chomsky
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
