Boris Vidovic:
>Sorry if anyone (like Michael) felt offended with my last posting. It
>hasn't been my intention to abuse anyone.
Take no notice, it's just Chanan on his high horse - acting the chivalrous
knight.
Your comments were quite appropriate to the uh speculations they were
directed at.
>Of course watching a film is a _sensuous_ experience. Is it first and
>foremost is another matter. What interests me is how this _sensuous_
>experience is based in our perceptive and cognitive capacities. About what
>cannot be spoken of I would keep silent. Many things cannot be explained,
>but a lot can.
>
>Instead of the notion of 'grain' which (to my mind) leans on mystical, I
>would propose ineffability as more adequate concept.
? the "ineffable" IS what can't be spoken of !
It doesn't seem much advance over Chanan on "grain" - a metaphor based on a
metaphor. Mike now seem to agree with a significant criticism:
>As for Andy Birtwistle's objection:
("It seems to me the voice doesn't have
'grain', but rather that the grain is the voice itself... re-grafting the
visual notion of grain back onto the visual of film via a shaky sonic
concept is problematic, even if we think it might eventually have value as
an exercise. Concepts, metaphors, conceptualisations can't be simply handed
from the sonic to the visual and made to fit - we are always talking about
something else, we always have to begin again.")
>there is of course some truth in this. I myself regard my contributions to
>this thread, as I said at the outset, as entirely provisional. <
He points out that "grain" is already based on a metaphor - obviously -
his second point is rather opaque and he adds that film has grain - in a
long-established sense. Not terribly illuminating.
However he's promised to go on thinking about it "though I may not have
anything new to contribute for the time being." Move on Mike, how about the
viscosity of the text ?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
