KAIP GALIMA KINO FILOSOFIJA?
The conditions of possibility of film philosophy are analyzed and discussed in the paper. It was not possible for film philosophy, as specific way of film interpretation, to appear because of the mutual hostility of philosophy to cinema and, vice versa, cinema to philosophy. It was searched for the...
| Publicado en: | Problems / Problemos Vol. 72; pp. 96 - 104 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Vilnius University
2007
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=27654701&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 27654701 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 13921126 3D4C jtl: Problems / Problemos issn: 13921126 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: 2007 vid: 72 pid: 16037 pub: Vilnius University artinfo: ui: 27654701 10.15388/Problemos.2007.0.2039 ppf: 96 ppct: 8 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 190KB tig: atl: KAIP GALIMA KINO FILOSOFIJA? aug: au: Milerius, Nerijus affil: Vilniaus universiteto Filosofijos katedra, Universiteto g. 9/1, LT-01513 Vilnius su: Motion pictures & philosophy Motion picture history Philosophy Film historians Cinematographers Film critics sug: subj: Motion pictures & philosophy Motion picture history Philosophy Film historians Cinematographers Film critics keyword: aesthetics cinematic image film philosophy estetika kinematografinis vaizdinys kino filosofija ab: The conditions of possibility of film philosophy are analyzed and discussed in the paper. It was not possible for film philosophy, as specific way of film interpretation, to appear because of the mutual hostility of philosophy to cinema and, vice versa, cinema to philosophy. It was searched for the preconditions of film philosophy not in works of philosophers but in three discourses on cinema. Film philosophy presents itself as the third discourse, following the first discourse, that of cinematographer, and the second discourse, that of film historian. The relations among those three cinematic discourses are examined. The conditions for transition from one discourse to the other are overviewed. It is concluded that the film philosophy discourse is not the propriety of academic philosophy alone. This kind of discourse could be represented by film makers and film historians who go beyond the limits of art discourse and seek to inscribe cinema into broader systems of understanding, philosophy here included. Straipsnyje analizuojamos kino filosofijos galimybės sąlygos. Pabrėžiama, jog kino filosofija kaip specifinis kino apmąstymo būdas ilgą laiką negalėjo atsirasti dėl kino ir filosofijos tarpusavio priešiškumo. Kino filosofijos prielaidų ieškoma ne filosofų tekstuose, bet išskiriant tris specifinius kalbos apie kiną būdus -- kinematografininko diskursą, kino istoriko diskursą ir filosofo diskursą. Atskleidžiami santykiai tarp šių trijų diskursų, apžvelgiamos perėjimo iš vieno diskurso į kitą sąlygos. Konstatuojama, jog kino filosofija nepriklauso vien akademinei filosofijai. Kino filosofijos diskursą gali reprezentuoti ir kino menininkai, ir kino istorikai, peržengiantys kino ar meno ribas ir įrašantys kino faktus bei procesus į platesnes prasmės sistemas, reikalaujančias filosofinės interpretacijos. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: Lithuanian refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Copyright of Problems / Problemos is the property of Vilnius University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. item: Problems / Problemos holder: Vilnius University dt: @attributes: year: 2007 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|