I agree with Jeff. Especially in regard to the inclusion of evaluative
component in the definition of the research field. Much of the main
classical theoretical generalisations about "the nature of film" were fake
generalisations because they were derived from the consideration of narrow
sample of what was valued to be paradigmatic "art", or paradigmatically
"artistic" ("filmic") aspects of movies. In the most cases, instead of
bringing a motivating and important mind widening perspective, an
introduction of evaluative component brings in a selectivity that stimulates
an arrogant choice of ignorance of all those films, film kinds and film
aspects, that are not being appriciated.
Hrvoje
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey T. Dean <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 07. siječanj 1999. 17:53
Subject: RE: What is a film?
> Let me start off by saying that I do not think that anyone has ever
>offered an adequate definition of art, and that I do not expect there will
>ever be one. My point was that supposed Wittgensteinian reasons for this
>are not good reasons, and that it is important not to be too hasty in
>discounting the possibility of definitions, since if successful they can
>serve important functions. However, I *do* think that precision in terms
>is necessary to do good philosophy (or good science, history, economics,
>etc.), but that there are other ways to achieve this goal than essentialist
>definitions.
> Ted mentions that historical or functional approaches to definitions would
>leave out what we care about most--the evaluative component. He also says
>that there is a clear difference between natural and cultural phenomena,
>in a way that suggests that he takes the evaluative component to consist in
>this difference. I don't think this is right, but since I'm not sure
>that's what was intended, I'll leave that point aside. What certainly
>seems wrong to me is the idea that there should be an evaluative component
>in a definition, such that saying definitions must fail because they do not
>have this component is like complaining that a fork doesn't cut well. A
>definition, if it is a good one, will pick out members of the defined
>class, and only members of the defined class. If a definition included an
>evaluative component, then it would pick out only members of the class
>which had a certain level of quality. This seems to be part of the problem
>with Tolstoy's attempt to define art; while he seemed to want to give us an
>idea of what art is, he really winds up giving us criteria for what *good*
>art is. But shouldn't a definition pick out *all* the members of the
>relevant class?
>
>Jeff
>
>PS: I think Plato's problem with the third man is a problem of
>self-predication, not a problem of offering an essentialist definition.
>Indeed, there is some debate about whether this is really a problem for
>Plato (properly understood), or, if it is, whether it is unsurmountable.
>
>
>
>At 12:30 PM 1/7/99 +0000, you wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>At 08:55 PM 1/6/99 -0000, you wrote:
>>>>Try a Wittgenstein-like approach. Don't seek to define the word. 'Film'
>is a
>>>>family of related practices. Like games, there is no necessary and
>>>>sufficient condition which is found in every instance, but there are
groups
>>>>of games with family resemblances. And don't forget that we are talking
of
>>>>something living, with new babies being born every day.
>>>>
>>>>Michael Chanan
>>
>>>Morris Weitz used a similar argument to try to show that there could be
no
>>>essentialist definition of art, its being an 'open concept'. Weitz's
>>>argument fails, because he fails to see that it is possible to produce
>>>definitions which recognize that shared sets of aesthetic features are
not
>>>the only kind of thing that can be used to produce a definition. We
don't
>>>define families based on their resemblance, not because resemblance is
>>>intransitive, but because it is not explanatory in terms of family
>>>membership. Genetic lineage, on the other hand, is (though it will not
>>>account for extended senses of the term 'family' which include adoption).
>>>Genetic lineage not only explains family groupings, but accounts for
>>>resemblance as well. While socially constructed concepts such as 'art'
and
>>>'film' are doubtless more difficult to define that those that correspond
to
>>>natural kinds, it is at least possible that such definitions can be
>>>constructed--based on functional considerations, say, or historical
>>>genealogy (which corresponds, for example, to the most fruitful attempts
to
>>>define species; functional and historical definitions of art are also
>>>possible--Steven Davies offers the former, while Jerrold Levinson
attempts
>>>the latter). Of course, such efforts at definition may fail. But
>>>Wittgensteinian considerations are not nearly sufficient to show that
they
>>>*must* do so.
>>>
>>>Jeff
>>
>>
>>Michael beat me to citing Wittgenstein as a useful way to avoid this
>>interminable and rather useless process of trying to find some specific
>>definition of a term like "film" - as with "art". I am not at all
persuaded
>>by the arguments presented by Jeff.
>>
>> There is a clear difference between such natural phenomena as
biological
>>species and cultural phenomena such as "art" and "film". Jeff claims that
>>"functional and historical definations of art are also possible". Oh
really
>>? Only at the expense of what interests most people about it - viz the
>>evaluative component. Thus, of course we can say historically - this
>>artefact has been called a "painting" and has been used for various
>>purposes (function)on the walls of churches, palaces and bourgeois
living
>>rooms. But this leaves open the question of whether or not it is really
art
>>- as opposed to, e.g. boring pastiche. With film we can of course resort
>>to technical defintions, but then, as Michael rightly points out, though
>>using an unfortunate metaphor, given the current objection, "new babies
are
>>being born every day".
>>
>> The more fundamental question is surely - why would you want a
definition
>>of "film" ? Especially when the adequacy of any definition is then tested
>>against our culturally acquired ability to use the term - i.e. we already
>>have an understanding of the term which any definition has to be judged
>>against.
>>
>> The desire for definitions stems from a mistaken belief that we can only
>>be thought to be serious and scholarly if we define all our key terms
very
>>precisely. Were we to adopt such a strategy in perception, we would not be
>>able to identify even individual members of our family from one moment to
>>the next, since each perceptual experience would have differences (angle,
>>light, etc) - we learn to intuitively grasp the resemblance between these
>>perceptions and that they are of the same object/person.
>>
>> Definitions become important in the sciences when accurate measurements
>>are required of specific, limited aspects, e.g. temperature, speed, etc.
>>and these are often of things for which we have no ordinary terms, e.g.
>>voltage, which can be expressed mathematically and no general
>>understanding against which to judge the technical definitions.
>>
>> What is gained by having some general definition of film, over and above
>>our normal understanding of the term (the determinant of the adequacy of
>>any defintion) ? Such terms have blurred, fluid edges, overlap with
related
>>terms: "video," "photograph," "story," "narrative," etc. This is part of
>>their richness and utility. Much of the best work in most fields stretches
>>traditional terms and shows relationships with previously unrelated areas.
>>I would not reject a work of criticism because it didn't start with a
>>strict definition of film. I would tend to reject one which failed to
>>illuminate the way this film related to relevant earlier and contemporary
>>ones (without requiring strict definitions of "genre" "thriller"
>>"narrative" "character" etc), AND to works in other areas - e.g.
paintings,
>>novels, plays. photographs, history, biography, etc.
>>
>> Wittgenstein's rope (its many overlapping threads like similarities and
>>a variety of relationships) enables us to escape from the prison of
>>Platonic attempts to arrive at precise definitions. It would also have
>>rescued Plato himself from the "third man" (not the film, the paradox).
>>
>>Anyway, what IS philosophy ? - and can I do any BEFORE I have given a
>>precise definition of it ? :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Jeff Dean
>[log in to unmask]
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
