French high-wire artist Philippe Petit once said: “It’s always easy to describe something complex by applying to it an already known label”. The impulse to label, and to thereby shape distinct expectations, is ever present in the life of film and media, from its creative and promotional stages to its analytical dissection in the halls of academia. Labels, for instance, play a crucial role in production and marketing for the purpose of gaining funding and attracting audiences. Within the context of academia, labels can be conceived of as ways of framing a certain discourse, or, more generally, to find a common vocabulary for comparative and interpretative research. But more than just simplifying and explaining complex structures, labels also contribute to problematic stereotypes and set limits to artistic freedom, even if, according to Patti Smith, “artists are traditionally resistant to labels”.
Though we can observe a never-ending drive to continue using established theoretical and analytical labels, or creating new critical and philosophical terms such as “transnational”, “neo-phenomenological”, or “post-colonial”, the speed in which the field of film and media studies is changing brings labels under constant interrogation as their validity and ability to speak to new aesthetic and social issues is challenged. Further consideration and new understandings of the power structures applied in creating and perpetuating these labels also cause call for pause when employing labels. But, in order to reflect on these dynamics of academic communication, do we need to refrain from theoretical labels, or do we rather have to reinforce them and follow D.N. Rodowick in writing an “elegy for theory”? After all, in a moving world of moving images, is theory not a “compass for artistic development”, to quote Béla Balázs?
What is at stake, then, when considering when, how, and by whom labels are used and created, what purpose do they still serve, and what is the resistance to labelling? How do labels that on the one hand provide insight also pose a danger of overlooking case-specific complexities? And what are the ramifications of these dangers in regards to the use of labels in political and societal contexts in which they run the risk of perpetuating legacies of colonization, patriarchy, and hierarchies? The Spring 2016 issue ofFrames Cinema Journal seeks to examine the continuation, reconceptualization, and rejection of the labels that define the medium we study. Topics may include but are not limited to:
We seek full article submissions for our features section (5,000-7,000 words) and our POV section (1,000-3,000 words) as well as video contributions enquiring the proposed topics. Video submissions may be sent to the editors in the form of a link using an online streaming source (Vimeo, YouTube, etc.).
All submissions (including a brief biographical note) should be sent by February 1, 2016 to:
Eileen Rositzka and Amber Shields (editors-in-chief)
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
About Frames
Frames Cinema Journal, based at the University of St Andrews, is an online biannual publication that aims to be a space for cutting edge research and ongoing discussions among film and media scholars.