Digital Fabrication and Its Meaning for Film

In Joaquim Braga (ed.), Conceiving Virtuality: From Art to Technology. New York, NY, USA: Springer (2019)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Bazin, Cavell and other prominent theorists have asserted that movies are essentially photographic, with more recent scholars such as Carroll and Gaut protesting. Today CGI stands as a further counter, in addition to past objections such as editing, animation and blue screen. Also central in debates is whether photog- raphy is transparent, that is, whether it allows us to see things in other times and places. I maintain photography is transparent, notwithstanding objections citing dig- ital manipulation. However, taking a cue from Cavell—albeit one poorly outlined in his work—I argue this is not so much because of what photography physically is, but because of what “photography” has come to mean. I similarly argue digital tech- nologies have not significantly altered what cinematic media “are” because they have not fundamentally modified what they mean; and that cinema retains a photographic legacy, even when it abandons photographic technologies to digitally manufacture virtual worlds.
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
CRIDFA
Upload history
Archival date: 2019-10-26
View other versions
Added to PP index
2019-06-29

Total views
46 ( #45,343 of 52,655 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
14 ( #36,879 of 52,655 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.