 |
 |
I do agree with Boris and Vince. I think there is on one side a major trend within scientific ratio indulging to cut the object as it would be something dead and by cutting in this way we often loose the sight (Occam docet). I don't like too much on the otehr side deconstructivistic trends as some hermeneutics or semiology, saying all and its contrary. They are in my opinion really weak loosing the meaning itself of science. That is why I always try to keep the basic fact that film is made by human beings, and it is not a magical or metaphysical object (as it comes out by reading some scientific essays on the matter). Artistical and cultural productions are made by humans and enjoyed by humans, that means we already have a basic circle, and we shouldn't dissect this circle too much, otherwise we could reach the cartesian doubt (is it all the world I see nothing but a nasty illusion built up by an evil daemon?). [Personally, I try in my theoretical frame not to divide, not to dissect, but to integrate our possible understanding of the matter... I don't know if I reach some good points yet I will continue in trying.] Always at disposition to think together best regards *********************************************************** "Alles, was da ist, muß hin sein, wo eine Stadt steht, die muß hin sein und sollen keine Steine liegen ..." -Question: Bertolt Brecht or the Nato General Clark?- ********************************************************* "Tocce, Vince" wrote: > > I don't know what Boris was referring to exactly, but I think I agree with > him non-the-less. Especially about the "terminology that can mean everything > and nothing." Half the time this list is used to further spew such > terminology, but the rest of the time it can be a fruitful and insighting > meeting of cinematic minds (a recent example that comes to mind is the Bill > Viola post). > > There are times when I want to un-subscribe to this list though, like when > I'm bombarded with posts that go entirely too far into debate about what > someone meant by such-and-such a term and whether or not it was meant to be > interpreted in a mathematical way or not. I think some of us can be swept > away by terminology and lose sight of what cinema really is, flickering > light on a screen. > > I believe that there is an art and science to everything (including cinema) > and subscribing to this list keeps me in touch with the scientific side of > the medium, however I think when delving into that science it is important > to keep in mind the artistic qualities and intentions involved as well. If > you can think of the cinema or a particular film as a human body that you > are dissecting with your theories and terminology, you have to be reminded > that despite the fact that you can take apart the hand and look at all it's > intricate facets - such as tendons and muscles and bones - you still have to > keep in mind that those body parts all lead back to the heart and are > dependant upon that he(art). > > It is obvious that a high level of intellect persists among the members of > this list. I just think that these minds could be flexing over more > pertinent cinematic issues. For example, the "dumbing down" of America's > youth has been present for quite some time now and seems to be only gaining > steam. Why not channel your deconstructing energy towards the source of the > humor in the comedy of Adam Sandler or movies like American Pie? It boggles > my mind how sex and gross out humor can so easily out sell intelligence, > insight and integrity. Any thoughts? > > -----Original Message----- > From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] > Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 1999 7:04 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Sokal & Bricment > > I think that this thread is very useful also for film studies since there > has been written so much bogus nonsense in our field. Some work has been > done within cognitivist approch, but there is still plenty of things to > dismantle (*deconstruct*?). > Latest craze for the writings of Zizek is one of such examples. It is true, > he is well read, charming and always fun to read (something Lacan, Deleuze > et al. never are), but it belongs more to postmodern, self-conscious kind > of leterature something between fiction and faction then to the serious > theory. > I know that there is quite a lot of fans out there, but Deleuze's explicit > refusal of any kind of empirical evidence, his nebulous > stream-of-consciousness prose and terminology that can mean everything and > nothing (usually nothing) can be of value just to the believers - and I'm > not among them. > On the other hand, I cannot understand how sloppy argumentation, fuzzy > thinking, lack of theoretical rigour, dogmatic invocation of *master's* > texts, confusion, obscurity and vagueness can ever claim to be progressive > or left-wing. One can vote for those whom one wants, love ethnical and > sexual minorities as much as one wants, but it has nothing to do with > *intellectual* impostures. > Boris Vidovic > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > "Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be; and if it > were so, it would be: but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." > > Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%