Description
The film theories of Jean Epstein, Dziga Vertov, Bela Balazs, and Siegfried Kracauer have long been studied separately from each other. In Doubting Vision , film scholar Malcolm Turvey argues that their work constitutes a distinct, hitherto neglected tradition, which he calls revelationism, and which differs in important ways from modernism and realism. For these four theorists and filmmakers, the cinema is an art of mass enlightenment because it escapes the limits of human sight and reveals the true nature of reality. Turvey provides a detailed exegesis of this tradition, pointing to its sources in Romanticism, the philosophy of Henri Bergson, modern science, and other intellectual currents. He also shows how profoundly it has influenced contemporary film theory by examining the work of psychoanalytical-semiotic theorists of the 1970s, Stanley Cavell, the modern-day followers of Kracauer and Walter Benjamin, and Gilles Deleuze.
Throughout, Turvey offers a trenchant critique of revelationism and its descendants. Combining the close analysis of theoretical texts with the philosophical method of conceptual clarification pioneered by the later Wittgenstein, he shows how the arguments theorists and filmmakers have made about human vision and the cinema's revelatory powers often traffic in conceptual confusion. Having identified and extricated these confusions, Turvey builds on the work of Epstein, Vertov, Balazs, and Kracauer as well as contemporary philosophers of film to clarify some legitimate senses in which the cinema is a revelatory art using examples from the films of filmmakers such as Alfred Hitchcock and Jacques Tati.
发表于2024-11-22
Doubting Vision 2024 pdf epub mobi 电子书
图书标签: Cinema 英文 analytics Cinematic-Perception #
Malcolm Turvey is Professor of Film History and Chair of Visual Culture Department, Sarah Lawrence College. He is also editor and writer for October and co-editor of Wittgenstein, Theory and the Arts (Routledgem, 2001)
无可置疑的是,视觉怀疑主义在整个早期电影理论研究之中都潜隐着或者“昭然若揭”。但就本文,我不认为采用分析路径直接打掉一些基本视觉至上主义的“结论”就合法正当。毕竟,很多“结论”背后的理论基础并非如作者所言的现代主体性,而是比如一元论和自然主义。
评分无可置疑的是,视觉怀疑主义在整个早期电影理论研究之中都潜隐着或者“昭然若揭”。但就本文,我不认为采用分析路径直接打掉一些基本视觉至上主义的“结论”就合法正当。毕竟,很多“结论”背后的理论基础并非如作者所言的现代主体性,而是比如一元论和自然主义。
评分Richard在Tisch的博士生的毕论,非常得分析路径,旨在澄清电影理论中盛行的vision skepiticism中的概念混乱和逻辑错误,功力颇了得。一个槽点:这位师兄在书里把R关于illusion(可以说是他前半生最重要的工作之一了)的观点全否定掉了,R居然让他毕业了,还把这书推给我看(贵派学风感人)。
评分Richard在Tisch的博士生的毕论,非常得分析路径,旨在澄清电影理论中盛行的vision skepiticism中的概念混乱和逻辑错误,功力颇了得。一个槽点:这位师兄在书里把R关于illusion(可以说是他前半生最重要的工作之一了)的观点全否定掉了,R居然让他毕业了,还把这书推给我看(贵派学风感人)。
评分无可置疑的是,视觉怀疑主义在整个早期电影理论研究之中都潜隐着或者“昭然若揭”。但就本文,我不认为采用分析路径直接打掉一些基本视觉至上主义的“结论”就合法正当。毕竟,很多“结论”背后的理论基础并非如作者所言的现代主体性,而是比如一元论和自然主义。
Doubting Vision 2024 pdf epub mobi 电子书