Time to Revisit Classical Film Theory

Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 79 (1):42-51 (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Film audiences are no longer in a position to know for certain which images, or features of images they see on the screen were created by photography and which were created in a computer. Yet they are reacting to the advent of computer graphics as if it is merely a technical improvement, not a change in the nature of film itself. This would mean that one of the most influential early theories of film—realism—is wrong. It held that film is by nature photographic and that its unique value is to afford the audience the physical connection with reality that photography, uniquely among pictorial media, brings. I argue that the audience is right about this. Even as applied to purely photographic films, realism was simply a mistake.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,122

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Image and Mind: Film, Philosophy and Cognitive Science.Gregory Currie - 1995 - New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Realism about Film and Realism in Films.Frank Boardman - 2020 - Film and Philosophy 24:43-62.
Dosimetry, personal monitoring film.Tim Stephens & Keith Pantridge - 2011 - Philosophy of Photography 2 (1):153-158.
The Ontology of Film.Julie N. Books - 2002 - Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst
Realism and anti-realism in film theory.Martin Seel - 2008 - Critical Horizons 9 (2):157-175.
The illusion of realism in film.Andrew Kania - 2002 - British Journal of Aesthetics 42 (3):243-258.
Inaugurating Philosophy of Film Without Theory.Craig Fox & Britt Harrison - 2020 - Aesthetic Investigations 3 (2):175-184.
What do we see in film?Robert Hopkins - 2008 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 66 (2):149–159.
Brecht.Angela Curran - 2008 - In Paisley Livingston & Carl Plantinga (eds.), Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Film. Routledge.
Film Art from the Analytic Perspective.Deborah Knight - 2019 - In Noël Carroll, Laura T. Di Summa & Shawn Loht (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of the Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures. Springer. pp. 357-379.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-02-06

Downloads
21 (#662,558)

6 months
5 (#366,001)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Lester Hunt
University of Wisconsin, Madison

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The world viewed: reflections on the ontology of film.Stanley Cavell - 1971 - Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Photography and Representation.Roger Scruton - 1981 - Critical Inquiry 7 (3):577-603.
The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film.James Milton Highsmith & Stanley Cavell - 1972 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 31 (1):134.
Visible traces: Documentary and the contents of photographs.Gregory Currie - 1999 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 57 (3):285-297.
Film as Art, 50th Anniversary Printing.Rudolf Arnheim - 1957 - University of California Press.

View all 7 references / Add more references