 |
 |
> >>The very act of filming is a pro-filmic event, surely? > > well, damian, perhaps . . . but this is cutting it very fine > indeed, isn't it? . . . for if the act of filming is itself a > pro-filmic event then the act of writing is always a > pro-textual [if that's the term??] event Yup. and if > ALL signifieds are simultanously signs both of > their referents and of of the circumstances of their > inscription [that is if they are simultanously and > indiscriminately both symbols and indices] then any > kind of discrimination becomes impossible since > the principle applies to all representations ALL signifiers as well. But no, not impossible to discriminate. Such categorisations are fine, as long as they are appreciated as categorisations. Phenomenological approaches that define the event must be self-revelatory, in my book. > > i have no argument with this in theory . . . but > i thought tim's post was about the peculiar and > special character of the act of filming pro-filmic > events that occur before the camera and it was > this that i was repsonding to No problem, I just smarted at the distinctions made. Even scratching the film (see Boris' post) is pro-filmic in my opinion. My understanding of the pro-filmic is in the process of filming (ie. Lenses, celluloid, and gubbins). It's therefore difficult to prove that events filmed AREN'T pro-filmic, if you see what I mean. The limits of event are defined by its filming etc. etc. I think. Damian Damian Peter Sutton University of Glasgow Department of French 16 University Gardens Glasgow G12 8QL tel 0141-330 5642 fax 0141-330 4234 email [log in to unmask]