SCREEN-L Archives

July 1995, Week 2

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Gene Stavis <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 7 Jul 1995 09:13:09 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (43 lines)
----------------------------- Begin Original Text
-----------------------------
 
there's no doubt that film gives more resolutiuon than video, why is that
important?  exactly what information does that extra detail provide?  (i
don't doubt that there's more PLEASURE in watching a good film version . . .
but is that really all that's at stake?
----------------------------- End Original Text -----------------------------
 
Aside from the fact that Mike seems to consider pleasure in an art form a
disposable element, the fact remains that more resolution (or the closer you
can come to the image's original resolution) provides the very essence of the
visual element of the cinema experience.
 
Why does Mike consider this to be expendible? From his posts, it appears that
he is primarily interested in the literary aspects of the films, e.g. their
stories, words, themes, etc. Fine. For his purposes, a video is perfectly
suited to this limited view.
 
However, I assume that most of us are concerned with the entire aesthetic
experience, in which case the quality of the visuals in their resolution, the
amount of detail revealed and the kinesthetic impression that only a
large-screen image of the proper resolution can give, is extremely important.
 
I have said as much in three previous posts. I don't get what Mike
fails to understand here. For him, the visual experience seems to be
secondary. For me, and I presume others here, it is the very essence of the
art form. Degrading the visual image not only dilutes the aesthetic
experience, but places the visuals in service to the film's literary values.
 
Would Mike suggest that a 78rpm lo-fi recording of a symphony is the same
experience as a modern stereo CD? Is a Xerox of an Ansel Adams photograph the
same as seeing a beautiful print of the original? In reproducing works of
art, we strive for the closest approximation of the original experience.
Video is handy, yes, but is that any reason to denigrate a far better
representation, which is film?
 
Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts, - NYC
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2