Several days ago I wrote about Béla Balász’ thoughts on silent movies and promised to discuss them. That they discovered non-verbal communication (not to be mistaken with sign language) as expressing […]
Looking at Sam Chirnside’s wonderful illustrations reminded me of Kierkegaard’s thoughts about repetition.
Silent film guides human beings towards a visual culture and gives them a new common face. This happens after printing made the human face unreadable, because facial expression and gesticulation got negligible within a verbal culture. Okay, but what does this assumption of Béla Balázs mean?
William Blake on divinely and poetically inspired friendship.
Now, of what use is a fable? A fable that set words aside and altogether surrenders itself to pictures.
All this buzz about Creationists, Dawkins, Intelligent Design, Darwin – what is it all about?
With regard to theistic religions the question is, whether there is an absolute good, almighty, and all-knowing God when there is the evil, physical as well as moral maladies. The intellectual defence of this God in face of physical and moral maladies are the different forms of what is called theodicy. However, in course of time, I got dissatisfied with and dismissive of this approach.
Cavell claims, that photographs are meant to highlight the world’s presence to us, whereas paintings are meant to show our presence to the world. In other words, whereas paintings are world as a whole, photographs are of the world. What does that mean?
Stanley Cavell interconnects the questions “What is art?” and “What is the importance of art?” He discovers that only movies are generally important, while music, paintings, novels etc. are not. In describing the conditions under which movies are made, he prepares the answers for the question “What is film?”
In “More of The World Viewed” of his The World Viewed Stanley Cavell claims that movies provide the myth of lived democracy against the myth of ruled democracy. But they cannot provide it by showing democracy at work, since that would made it a mere utopia. He explains this by referring to the 30ies’ comedies.
When it comes to some creations of modern art some people claim that they or their children could do this as well. Are they overrating themselves or their children? And can you find some criteria, at least one criterion, to distinguish a child’s picture from a modern artist’s painting? A playful and slippery attempt to revolve around these questions and respective answers.
Cavell heightens this statements about movie stars into a very surprising, worth of thinking about and challenging one. He writes: The stars “realized the myth of singularity” (p.35), wherefore “movies have an inherent tendency toward the democratic, or anyway the idea of human equality” (p. 34). – What are his reasons to state such a daring thesis?
A stage character is an independent entity created by a playwright. Contrary to this, a movie star is doubly bound. It’s bound to a single performer and to the public. How Stanley Cavell comes to this idea and what this idea means I will explain in the following.
Creative demolition of a hyper-controlled conduct of life and risking blush by living one’s live as a work of art. How? A conversation between David Eugene Edwards, Wim Vandekeybus and Michel Foucault.
links: Jack Pezanosky (4 Jahre), rechts: „Laburnum“ (1954) von Hans Hoffman Wohl jeder Mensch fühlt es: Wir alle sprechen ein und dieselbe Sprache, wenn wir lieben. Dann verstehen wir uns […]