. . . isn’t the key to be found in ross’ phrase “can be used”? . . .

one might begin by asking what kind of use ross has in mind, but i’m guessing that he’s referring to images used as illustration or as evidence . . . the former requires a syntactical move that might be implied by convention but is hardly inherent in the image itself, more likely coming from the discourse in which the image is embedded . . . the latter, more radically, requires not only a discursive frame external to the image but the assertion of the claim of the image to be accurate, that is: an assertion of some specific referential relationship between the image and something else . . .

none of these is inherent in the image itself . . . whether some such truth claim might be inherent in the juxtaposition of images seems to be the question that is currently on the table

mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Film-Philosophy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ross Macleay
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 12:24 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Yet Another New Thread)

A shot used as actual footage can be used to make a truth claim, many

truth claims in fact, an indeterminate number of truth claims. If an

accused testifies that he did not kill so-and-so at time and place

such-and-such and then I show CCTV of him killing so-and-so at

such-and-such then I am using that shot to make a truth claim counter his.

Also, whether I can judge whether a shot is true or false is an other

matter.

On 24/10/2010 10:17 AM, John Matturri wrote:

> On 10/23/10 6:48 PM, Ross Macleay wrote:

>> Film (video without audio) is propositional. *A shot is a=20

>> proposition*. It is true or false. But unlike a sentence a shot is=20

>> indeterminate in what it means, or perhaps manifold in it what means