 |
 |
Hi Damian, Point well taken, well put. I do entirely agree that "film" and "art" as they are both (generally, normally, traditionally) categorized and understood, if I can make a blanket statement, do not aim for the same "thing" -- or (often) the same "audience" -- and we have to be conscious of these differences, which most of us are, but we can also see where the expansion (explosion?) of "art" (as a term) can lead to its own un-doing, and hence re-doing -- as I think Foucault suggests. But, perhaps, I am getting off the point. So, to return, in a sense, I think that film is an "art" in the sense that it is a "redistribution of the sensible" (Ranciere). I think film is part and parcel to our current "aesthetic regime" (Ranciere). And all that said, I have no investment in "traditional notions" of "art" (as passed down from art history and its institutions). On a similar note, or a parallel one, I find cinema utterly more "democratic" (in the sense we can all watch a film, which is the "same" film for everyone, which is _not_ to say it means the same for everyone, and we can watch it [now] wherever, whenever) than "art" (and I mean so-called "fine art"), and we can buy (most) films -- without the (tired) claims by many as _that_ film not being the original, the real, the true film -- as what happens with "fine art" (e.g., buying a poster of such and such an artwork). Walter Benjamin made a similar point: I think I am drawing on Benjamin. Also, I think the history of cinema is witness to this I wonder, is a relationship between the "democracy" of which I speak re: film and "literature"? I think the (dreadful) art market is proof of the un-democratic nature of "fine art" (and its institutions), its elitism (as in classism), and its history of fetishsizing the singular, discrete object. Okay, I think I am going in multiple directions, but this is interesting to think about, given I am not a film scholar, but an (un-)art historian ... Robert Summers, PhD Lecturer ABD: Art History Liberal Arts and Sciences Dept. Otis College of Art and Design 9045 Lincoln Blvd. Los Angeles, CA. 90045 e: [log in to unmask] t: 310.665.6800 Confidentiality Notice: This communication (including attachments) is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, U.S.C . Sec. 2510-2521, is confidential, intended solely for the addressee, and may contain privileged information. Any dissemination, distribution, or forwarding of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or if you believe you may have received this communication in error, please do not print, copy, retransmit, disseminate, or otherwise use this communication or any of the information contained herein. Please notify the sender that you have received this communication in error and delete the copy you received. Access, copying or re-use of the e-mail or any information contained therein by any other person is not authorized. On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 8:50 AM, D.Sutton <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Mike, Hi Robert, > > You're sort of on the right wavelength. The term art is just generally > unhelpful considering the process of production in cinema, as well as > reception. When we get to criticism and theory, I think it becomes even more > unhelpful for some of the same reasons that Robert identifies. > > You couldn't find a more fractious debate than one which tries to define art > (and there are a few listservs I can point you to, one of which - > Aesthetics-L - effectively imploded) but that's not the point. > > The honorific use of the term is at stake, and I would question its use for > the same reasons that Aaron questioned the term 'text'. Calling cinema (or > 'film') art attaches a specific set of criteria to the form that cinema > almost never tries to match. The terms 'film' and 'art' and never used well > together in film criticism, even by Bordwell and Thompson (do I go to Hell > for saying that?) > > I like Robert's invocation of Foucault. However, I you substituted > art/techne for 'design' then you'd be on the same wavelength as mine. > > Best > > Damian > > > On 5/26/09 4:28 PM, "Frank, Michael" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> if what damian REALLY wanted [though i kinda doubt it] was to get rid entirely >> of the concept "art" -- which is used more often than not as a highly >> tendentious and untheorized honorific -- then i'm on board . . . all too often >> it means little more than "my tastes [or my standards] are better than yours" >> >> so i can see why this might be categorized as micro-fascist >> >> but i fear that isn't what damian wanted at all >> >> tant pis >> >> mike >> >> >> >> -------------------- >> when the ship is capsizing, the first thing jettisoned is integrity >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf >> Of Robert Summers >> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:50 AM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY medium[Scanned-Clean] >> >> Chris Gooch, et al., >> >> Who gets to decide what is "art" -- let alone what film is "art" and >> what film is not "art"? How is "art" even being defined as? Let us >> not assume "we" all agree to a definition in advance. Further, what is >> the assumption/s behind your (and others) aforementioned statement? >> Perhaps: "This is good; thus, this is art"? What proceeds the >> questions "is film art"? >> >> Personally, I would be hesitant to make any (ridged) binary >> oppositions and hierarchies, and you are right to say this is an old >> debate, which is one reason I am rather perplexed by its >> (re-)emergence. There seems to be a desire, right now on this >> listserv, to categorize in ways that can be understood in Guattarian >> terms as "mirco-fascist" molbilizations around objects and subject in >> the world. >> >> >> Robert Summers, PhD >> Lecturer ABD: Art History >> Liberal Arts and Sciences Dept. >> Los Angeles, CA. 90045 >> e: [log in to unmask] >> t: 310.665.6800 >> >> >> >> >> Contact: [log in to unmask] >> ** >> >> * >> * >> Film-Philosophy 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] >> Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html >> For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. >> * >> Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com >> Contact: [log in to unmask] >> ** > > * > * > Film-Philosophy 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] > Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html > For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. > * > Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com > Contact: [log in to unmask] > ** > * * Film-Philosophy 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] Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. * Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] **