>daigle:
>>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.<
>
Welch:
>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.
>
>
daigle: So you can't, in fact, rationally deny my statement but must seek
recourse in an ad hominem attack on my sanity? I rest my case. Da Vinci's
"last Supper" is a great film.
>WELCH:
> 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..>
Daigle:
Hmm... so rather than define film, we would have to define film in this
context? That is precisely what I am trying to do.
>>>>Daigle:
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Welch:
>>> 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.
>>>
Daigle:
Who's talking about precise defintions besides you? I'm certainly not, nor
have I ever been.
>Welch:
> 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.
>
Daigle:
Yes, yes I do. This is what might be termed a "working defintion" or
understood meaning. Which is what I'm trying to come up with for film, a
general description or definition that we can all agree on in order to
insure that we are all talking about the same thing.
>Daigle:
>>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.
>Welch:
> 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.
>
Daigle:
No, but my understanding of what they mean by "machismo" does depend on
their being able to tell me what they mean when they use the term... else I
might think that they were talking about something that was not, in fact,
part of their understanding of the word "machismo" and thus get my ass
kicked. So you see, definitions are important.
>Daigle:
>>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.
>
Welch:
> 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.
>
Actually, Mr. Welch, you first resorted to biology with your evolutionary
argument. I am simply following suit.
Film, existing temporrally in an ordered fashion, can be differentiated
from multi-media by the addition of USER control over the course of the
plot in the latter.
This means that the basic rules of composition alter in a multi-media
context, as the artist is no longer engaged in the simple creation of a
story, but rather in the creation of OPTIONS in a story. There are several
schools of thought on how to do this.
Of course, I have no means of knowing what your understanding is, or what
it entails, so your challenge is exceptionally difficult. Perhaps you could
explain, further, what you mean when you say "film."
>>>Welch
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.
>>>
Daigle:
>>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?
>
Welch:
>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.
>
Daigle
Is it? What, pray tell, do you mean by "absurd," "reductionist," "cultural
understanding," and "definition." How do these concepts differ from each
other, what do they mean?
>>>Welch:
>>> 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.
>
>
>>Daigle:
>>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.
>
>Welch:
> 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.
>
Daigle:
Oooo, sarcasm. Can you do sardonic, too? I would understand, if you could
explain yourself with a little more precision and attention to detail,
rather than simply resorting to ad hominem attacks and self-contradictory
smiley faces. :> No offense may be meant, but offense is most certainly
being taken.
I'm sorry to say this, but a table is in fact broad. All tables must be
broad, or they are not "tables" as I understand the term, but are in fact
something else... such as a countertop, shelf or bar.
>>Daigle:
>>I can give you a nice, broad, definition of "table," such as to distinguish
>>it from "chair."
>Welch:
>But you didn't, and I can sit on a table and put things on a chair, etc.
>
Daigle:
A "chair" is used to sit on. If you sit on a table, you are using it as a
chair (which is certainly your right as human being) and if you put things
on a chair you are using it as a kind of table. See, the definition doesn't
restrict your use, and if you want to invent a new kind of "Chair" thats
fine... as long as it is built to be SAT on. Otherwise, its not really a
chair, and if you apply the word chair to a table, I can apply the word
film to a painting. Which I have.
>>Daigle:
>>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.
>Welch:
>Children do NOT normally learn most words in a language by being told
>definitions of them. Try Chomsky.
>
Daigle:
But they do learn SOME words by asking for, and recieving, explanation and
definitions. Therefore, learning definitions is part of learning the
language. In fact, I would say that language aquisition is the art of
connecting words to other words... and once you've connected a word to
other words, you have a definition, as I understand the term. Perhaps we're
having a semantic problem here. How do you define definition?
>>>>Daigle
>>>>"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).
>>>Welch:
>>>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.
>>>
>>>
>>Daigle
>>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.
>
>Welch:
>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.
>
Daigle:
Yes, it is, as I define "art." No intuitive process, no "art" as I define
the word. As I mentioned, you can only deny this by simple denial, which
you did above by saying "this is not necessarily true."
>>Daigle
>> 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.
>Welch:
>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).
>
Daigle:
How can you challenge something which cannot, by your argument, exist? You
have stated that art has no definition, I say that it therefore would have
no _meaning. I have provided a definition. Unless you have a better one,
how can anyone accept or evaluate what you say about "art" except by taking
your statements on faith?
>
>>>>Daigle:
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Welch:
>>>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".
>>
>Welch:
>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.
>
Daigle: But the temporal dimension of film is relatively fixed and can be
measured by the clock, whereas the temporal dimension of a book must ALWAYS
be reader defined... wheiren lies the difference between a spatial medium,
one which has a fixed existence in space and an unfixable existence in
time, and a temporal medium, which has a fixable dimension in time. Of
course all things exist within a space time continuum, that is more or less
what is meant by the word "exists" in the first place.
>Welch:
>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..
>
Daigle:
Seen them, thanks. Your missing the point entirely. See above.
>>Daigle:
>>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.
>
>Welch:
>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.
>
Daigle:
First, I don't know how I could possibly check a definition of megalomania
without simply asking you, the arbiter of all cultural understanding,
whether or not I am possessed of it... at least not by your argument.
Second, I didn't say I could not be "wrong" I said that my definition could
not be outmoded by technology. My definition could be wildly wrong, but
I'll take it over no definition at all.
>Welch:
>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.
>
Well of course we could. But it wouldn't be a film, any more than a filmic
version of Shakespeare's play is theatre. They are different things. And by
my definition, no, your hypothetical Branaugh viewers are not wrong, they
are viewing what I would define as film.
>>Daigle:
>>What, by the way, is our "normal" use of the word film?
>Welch:
>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 ?
>
Daigle:
I'm sorry, that is not an answer. Please tell me again what the normal use
of the word film is?
>>Welch:
>>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,
>
>Welch:
>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 ?
>
>
Daigle:
Yes, I have given you a definition of philosophy, in that I assert, that
among other things, the philosopher must define ideas. Therefore philosophy
is, at its core, the art (in this context, artistic pursuit) or science of
defining ideas. It can be divided into three general areas: Ethics, the a/s
of defining ideas about right and wrong; Aesthetics, the a/s of defining
ideas about truth and beauty; and Metaphysics, the a/s of defining ideas
about the general nature of the universe.
While the philospher may use many methods, including critisism or rhetoric,
to pursue philosophy, philosophy is no more these things than film is the
screen.
Frankly, I see no contradiction. I am certainly not insisting that all
things start with a definition of film, or philosophy, or anything. I am
simply saying that unless we understand what a word means, its use is of
little value. Therefore, in order to clear the air, some people are trying
to come to an agreement on how we are using the word "FILM" in this
discussion area. It doesn't have to be done all the time, or everytime, but
it must be accomplished at SOME POINT.
>>Daigle:
>>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.)
>Welch:
>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).
>
Daigle:
Well, actually, I've seen quite a few silent films that were made quite
recently. In fact, I went through an entire silent period some time ago. So
while we may usually be talking about sound, we are not, of neccesity,
talking about sound.
As for painting, it is not temporal in the same sense as film, and it is
not projected on or displayed on a monitor or screen, rather it is painted
on a surface.
I maintain that we are talking about a category of media (defined as a
means to present evidence of art, which is a type of intuitive decision
making; or science, defined as a type of rational or logical decision
making) which involves definable temporal dimensions and image either
projected onto a surface or displayed on a "monitor." A monitor is
described as a general purpose technological device created for the purpose
of generating images based on electrical or other information, but that is
neither altered by (in a permanent, physical sense) nor contains the image.
In brief, light, time, display.
This category of media currently includes "cinema" or film on celluloid,
"video" film on magnetic tape, etc. etc.
>Welch:
> 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!
>
Changes in narrative, character, morals, politics, ideas - even philosophy,
will have no impact on my definition because my definition describes a
category... not its morals, not its methods, not its ideas, not even its
philosophy. I would not attempt to do so, I would not see the point in
attempting to define "film" by describing these aspects than I would define
a beach by describing grains of sand. Individual grains of sand may come
and go (and for your pleasure, I have chosen a non-biological metaphor) but
the Beach remains. This defintion may be "banal" in your eyes, and may not
contribute to what you think is important, but that makes it neither
inaccurate, nor does it make it objectionable. It is what it is, a
descriptor, a signpost, something that describes, in my view quite nicely,
what you would call indescribable.
If you do not have a better one, might I suggest we use mine, and change
the subject to those aspects of film that you DO consider important?
j. daigle
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
