Must We Mean What We Say? A Book of World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Senses of Mothersill & Stanley Cavell. The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film · Stanley Cavell. Harvard Stanley Cavell – – State University of New York Press. Film Theory and. Abstract. Stanley Cavell’s The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology Film ( ) is patient with the ways in which common sense is threatened by our.
|Published (Last):||26 December 2008|
|PDF File Size:||16.16 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.79 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Meaning and Spectatorship in Cinema. Sign in to use this feature.
The World Viewed
The Acknowledgment of Silence. Harvard University Press- Performing Arts – pages.
Foregoing likeness is just one way of getting closer to physical reality, which really means here the cavwll reality of everyday life since, after all, it does not mean the reality of physics.
To ask other readers questions about The World Viewedplease sign up. And he is entirely correct about csvell stuff we say. Posted by Tom Leddy at He practically admits to this near the end of the chapter, when he bemoans the epistemologist’s approach and speaks of Hegel and Heidegger almost in the same breath. End of stznley Myths. Thursday, October 19, Cavell: Mar 05, Kevin Lucia rated it liked it. But here I will only talk about the first section, “Sights and Sounds.
This is not simply a defense of the ontology of film, it is a declaration that popular art has an ontological dimension that cannot be avoided. Cooper Long – – Film-Philosophy 22 1: Cavell calls to attention that all you have to do to see the world is pull the cloth tthe and look out.
The World Viewed: Reflections on the Ontology of Film
The central concepts he circles around continuously all possess a dual meaning, both artistic and philosophical – “presence,” “presentness,” “acknowledgement,” “conviction,” “automatism” – I won’t attempt to define them because I can’t. So, again, I do not see the big differences Cavell sees. And then photography overcame subjectivity in another way.
For example, we can say that a record “reproduces a sound” but it is not cave,l what a photograph reproduces, if anything. Reflections on the Ontology of Film Stanley Shanley Harvard University Press- Performing Arts – pages 2 Reviews In their thoughtful study of one of Stanley Cavell’s greatest yet most neglected books, William Rothman and Marian Keane address caveol eminent philosopher’s many readers, from atanley variety of disciplines, who have neither understood why he has given film so much attention, nor grasped the place of The World Viewed within the totality of his writings about film.
Wittgenstein and the Social. Lackey – – Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 32 2: The Ways of Film Studies: Jan 07, Tim rated it really liked it.
Hannah Landecker – – Science in Context 24 3: The Patience of Film. This article has no associated abstract. Tine rated it liked it Oct 14, The study of film needed to found itself, intellectually, upon a philosophical investigation of the conditions of the medium and art of film. But that is also true for painting: No keywords specified fix it.
Gose – – Cambria Press. Cavell viewev makes all of this safe-sounding by putting it in the language of ordinary language philosophy, talking voewed “what we say” and finding interesting insights in that. We are un According to Cavell, the “material basis of the media of movies” is “a succession of automatic world projections”.
When the new field entered universities in the late s, it predicated its legitimacy on the conviction that the medium’s artistic achievements called for serious criticism and on the corollary conviction that no existing field was capable of the criticism filmed called for.
Aesthetics Today: Cavell: The World Viewed ‘Sights and Sounds”
I thought I had a fairly firm grasp on most of those things, and still I found the book something to wrestle with. Cavell has some interesting things to say about what we mean by “sight” here. Sorld says “The route to conviction in reality was through the acknowledgment of that workd presence of self” and I think this is giving too much credit to the cogito. Reflections on the Ontology of Film by Stanley Cavell.
Robert Sinnerbrink – – Film-Philosophy 10 3: Stanley Cavell – – Harvard University Press. Objects are too close to their sights to give them up for reproducing. Jun 24, Luke rated it liked it Shelves: Gaston Roberge – – Ajanta Publications. Instead, I received a somewhat enigmatic, candid, and meandering set of reflections on some elements of the phenomenology of film, with the occasional musing on the ontology of media. What about all the choices and manipulations photographers make?
Chapter 2, “Sights and Sounds”, is quite the mess of equivocation and an attempt to make noumena our phenomena. Want to Read saving…. Daniele Rugo – – Palgrave. Of course the question, as Cavell puts it, is somewhat new viz.
Such was the challenge The World Viewed took upon itself. This suggests why it is wrong to think of movies in terms of dreams or hallucinations. Honestly, I think it’s more my thin philosophical background that’s gave me a hard time here, and I blame that, not Cavell. Blizek – – Modern Schoolman 50 4: Gary Norris rated it it was amazing Dec 19,