 |
 |
Reading this discussion I could not help evoke Antonioni's Blow Up. Perhaps the search for a filmic language is doomed to fail because it's trying to stay within a paradigm yearning for truth claims and representation that needs first to divorce itself from the (perhaps political) agenda that motivates it. What an image says is always up for grabs. In the end, all we may end up doing is throwing round imaginary tennis balls. But that's half the fun. rwm From: Film-Philosophy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dan Barnett Sent: Tuesday, 26 October 2010 3:24 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: ontology of imagery John, Could you clarify where you were going with your reference to Quine? I think the idea of ontological relativity is central to this question of imagery in language and imagery in cinema, but I'm not really following you here. This question takes on a whole new dimension in the world of digital, but it was confusing enough before. Also I'm having a bit of trouble mapping peoples use of terms. Pragmatics? Context? Language games? All of these are circling the same notion, but shade differently perhaps? The problem with a forum like this is that, one can't ask for immediate clarification. Also in terms of mapping, there are terms like connotation/denotation when applied to image use that can be illuminating or confusing depending on the style of conversation we are involved in. So far most of the conversation has revolved around literal/narrative usages, whereas for me the more interesting (but probably more difficult to access) questions relate to the poetic uses of imagery. Thinking here of narrative flow vs. montage. There was an exercise I used to undertake in filmmaking classes where A would make a film explicitly as a letter to B, Then B would reply using shots from A's letter mixed with his own, etc. Certain shots tended to have more currency than others, as the letters were shown to the rest of the class and would be taken up (with variation) by more people. Of course this exercise would be way more practical in digital video,and I think could provide a model for how a more recognizably syntactic film language could develop. BTW, I think the truth function of diagrams is obviously way more suspect. db * * 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] Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon * Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] ** * * Film-Philosophy 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 technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon * Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] **