 |
 |
but [picking up on herbert's helpful citing of cohen-seat] don't we need a three part discrimination rather than just two? . . . . for haven't we in this discussion come around to the sense that there is a significant [that's exactly the right word] difference between the MATERIAL basis of film [celluloid or chemical emulsion or digital storage etc] and its characteristic use of SIGNS [whether seen as a language or not]? . . . so we end up, at the very least, with 1) a set of materials; 2) a set of codes or signs; and 3) a culture within which those are used in specific ways i think we need at least those three BYW, i wonder why Herbert is sorry that issues of esthetic value have crept in to the discussion - but that's a separate matter mike -----Original Message-----] I am sorry that this discussion has turned into a discussion of aesthetic values of films. But to return to the beginning of this thread and to questions of the medium of film I want to offer the very helpful distinction by Gilbert Cohen-Séat,one of the founders of filmologie (films studies) and film philosophy in the 1940s. Gilbert Cohen-Séat distinguishes between the "faits filmique", which concerns the material basis and the ontology of film and its signs, and the "faits cinématopraphique", which concerns the culture, the reception and the economy of films and the institution of cinema. It is helpful because some ontological problems concerning films (for example the status of the digital) can be solved when applied ot the faits cinématographique, as the faits cinématografique (the facts of cinema) are more open to change. Herbert ** * * Film-Philosophy 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 help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon. * Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] **