 |
 |
Hi Julien I think it make sense. in fact Tarkowsky write a chapter about that realtionship in the book i meation to you-"Sculpting Time". I fyou want some kind of help please don't be affraid and say it! Good Luck André [log in to unmask] >From: julien guillemet <[log in to unmask]> >Reply-To: Film-Philosophy Salon <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: RE : Bibliography on contemplation >Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 00:02:44 +0200 > >First of all, thanks to the people (at least the 3 of you) who answered. I >did not know all the books you advised me. So, I’m feeling a bit less >lonely in my lake of materials. >(But for me the Lumiere Brothers' Arrivee d'un train a La Ciotat does not >involve a contemplative attitude at all (even though it’s a still shot) >since there is a lot of movement in it, a lot of action, the frame is >almost saturated. Also, I think that in its context, this film plays on the >spectacular side of the film apparatus, on the spectacle of the cinematic >event itself (see the theory of the “attractions” in the early cinema >elaborated by Tom Gunning (for instance: GUNNING, Tom, “The cinema of >attraction: early film, its spectator and the avant-garde”, in Wide Angle, >vol 8, n° 3 & 4, sept 1986, pp. 63-70.) , see also the commentaries of the >early watchers who where really afraid when the train comes to a close-up) >which for me is the opposite of any contemplative attitude since it >involves an aesthetic of visual shock that “snap” the spectator attention >“up”, likesay (sorry for the terms but I don’t know how to translate that >properly.). > >Anyway, 2 points come to mind from your answers: > - it seems that contemplation in the cinema has not been strongly >theorised in a large scale by scholars yet (so the field seems open) and >that it is more about filmmakers concerns > - it seems that the idea of contemplation or the contemplative attitude >generally aims to a kind of transcendence that induce a sort of ecstatic >(etym: “out of oneself”) way of seeing the film picture. So, in this >aesthetic tradition (the pattern must originate in the religious mystical >contemplation), the contemplation of a work of art, of a film, should lead >the spectator “beyond” the picture, “beyond” the sensitive world and >“beyond“ the self toward something exterior and superior to the world and >to the sensitive phenomena. So the contemplative spectator becomes a pure >spirit cut from his sensorial activity. > >But my idea would be that the contemplation attitude in film doesn’t aim to >a transcendental state of mind, but on the contrary helps to reveal to the >embodied spectator the primary and essential sensitive immanence of the >picture and of the (embodied) self. To contemplate is to feel (the picture, >the world, oneself) in a particular but intense way that only leads to >strongly feel the sensitive immanence of life itself. The contemplative >attitude does not aim to any beyond, to any transcendence but only reveals >to the spectator the very sensitive immanence of the picture, the world and >the self by proposing a particular kind of affect, the contemplative >affect. > > Well, I don’t know if I’ve made myself clear on this point (I guess it’s >not even clear for me in my own language, so…) but I would like to dispute >the traditional aesthetic way of analysing the contemplation phenomenon. > So, if any idea about that comes to you and that you don’t mind wasting >time discussing it, don’t hesitate to answer. > > > Thanks > > > > > > > >* >* >Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. >After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are >replying to. >To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: >[log in to unmask] >For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. >** > > > > >--------------------------------- >Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions >! Demandez à ceux qui savent sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses. > >* >* >Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. >After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are >replying to. >To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: >[log in to unmask] >For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. >** _________________________________________________________________ MSN Busca: fácil, rápido, direto ao ponto. http://search.msn.com.br * * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. **