 |
 |
Hi Damien, In the original sense of Husserl, 'phenomenology' meant that we derive essences by a process that studies appearances. A more contemporary meaning is 'infomation derived from the statements of informants, as opposed to what I, myself, might observe.' In Physics, a 'phenomenology' refers to properties obtained from observation as opposed to math. In any sense, the term is derived from the Classical Greek 'phanomen', or 'that which appears'. Various schools of thought center upon the extent to which phanomen represent truth. For example, while Plato originally thought very little, he later changed his mind, rather famoulsy writing, 'Hold to appearences'. A phenomenology of a photographic image would seem to ask questions as to what this image means in and of itself, or context-bound? Does it possess intrinsic value, or must we use the pov of the taker as a referent? Lots of French aesthetes did, indeed, seem to talk of film as a sequence of discreet images (despite the obvious contextuality!); and although I'm supposed to remember their names for the sake of history, my general feeling is that theirs is a remonstration of effite paradox-mongering--ostensibly a carry-over from their days at the Sorbonne. Transcendental Empiricism is far more precise. Deleuze created this term to describe himself, as opposed to Kant's transcendental idealism. In passing I would say that a Deleuzian account of 'language' would not limit its use to "what is spoken of written". All physical systems that impart information are languages, and the mental stuff is only that which is particular to the physical output of the brain. BH > Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:03:28 +0100 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 24 Oct 2010 (#2010-283) > To: [log in to unmask] > > Mike and everyone, > > I am interested in this discussion of photography, and a lot of it suggests that we struggle to advance beyond a quais-Bazinian reading of photography. I think there is still great sense in acknowledging that photographs still provide a sense of the object that was there (passe Sontag and Bazin) and several scholars have taken pains to say that we can never really contest this (Batchen, Green et al). However, there is a growing critical debate on the ontology of the photographic image which refuses to assign a phenomenological innocence, or independence, to the photograph. What this means is that it should not be axiomatic to say that the ‘photo shows nothing more than it shows’, since the image is invested culturally, no matter how thin, fleeting or evanescent that cultural imprint. I think the smuggling in of cultural codes within the science of photography is akin to the Latourian view of science, but I’d have to go back and look. > > (Also I am not sure I have used ‘phenomenological’ correctly. It is a concept (like ‘transcendental empiricism’) that I simply can’t get right. > Best > Damian > > > > On 25/10/2010 14:30, "Frank, Michael" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > photographs lie only when you assume that they are SAYING something as opposed to SHOWING something . . . a photograph understood as simply showing something cannot lie, it only shows what it shows . . . the idea that what it shows corresponds to something else not in the photograph is an idea [maybe a linguistic idea] and cannot be blamed on the photograph itself -- for the poor photo does nothing more than show what it shows . . . which is axiomatic > > mike > > -----Original Message----- > From: Film-Philosophy [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Don Handelman > Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 9:12 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 24 Oct 2010 (#2010-283) > > > Regarding truth claims of the visual, a line from the 1990 noir > > thriller, Blindside: > > "Photographs lie; diagrams tell the truth." > > DH > > > > > Topics of the week: > > > > 1. Yet Another New Thread) > > > > * > > * > > 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] > > ** > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:59:27 +1100 > > From: Ross Macleay <[log in to unmask]> > > Subject: Re: Yet Another New Thread) > > > > John & Mike both raise points that are important. We are not far > > apart. > > I am not sure though that my contention that a shot is used to make a > > truth claim is only terminological. It follows from the fact that > > shots > > have a truth value that we can have a logic of film: true or false > > propositions, entailment relations, valid arguments etc. Without such > > logical means film could make narrative arguments. > > > > My reply to John is that a shot is used as an intentional (or > > non-natural) sign with, if you like, all the nesting of intentions > > that > > Grice identifies in his theory of meaning. A shot is used with the > > intention of making a truth claim. (I also a agree that a shot is a > > bit > > of non-intentional stuff that has a causal relation to whatever it's > > actual footage of.) > > > > To Mike: Not only evidence or illustration but truth claim. I agree > > that > > a shot is embedded in discourse - historically all shots are embedded > > in a world of linguistic (and other) propositions - but this is > > precisely how truth is defined in its sense as 'coherence with other > > truths'. > > > > As for 'specific referential relationship' actual footage is the > > epitome > > of truth defined as 'correspondence between proposition and the > > world'. > > > > Maybe none of these things is inherent in the shot itself, but what > > is > > inherent in a sentence? > > > > Ross > > > >> > > * > * > 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] > ** > * * 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] ** > > -- > Dr Damian Sutton > Reader in Photography > > Department of Art and Design > School of Arts and Education > Middlesex University > Cat Hill Campus > Chase Side > Barnet, Herts. > EN4 8HT > > Tel. (0)208 411 6827 > Homepage: http://damiansutton.wordpress.com > > * > * > 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] > ** * * 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] **