SCREEN-L Archives

December 1994, Week 2


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
Kaarlo Juhana Stedt <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Thu, 8 Dec 1994 16:08:26 +0200
text/plain (25 lines)
Arthur Lizie asked about a good definition of film genre. I think I have
one. My definition is a corollary of C.S. Peirce's pragmatistic principle
that goes something like
"Consider what effects, which might conceivably have practical bearing,we
conceive the object of our conception to have. Then our conception of
those effects is the whole of our conception of the object."
It then follows that when we try to decide how to classify certain films
to certain categories - or genres - we only have to look at the practical
consequences of a certain film. An then all the films that have similar
effects belong to the same category or genre. And besides of the clarity
of this notion we can get rid of all those obscure and theoretically
unsound "tautological" definitions.
I also think that my definition has a very firm theoretical ground that
Lizie finds missing in current babbling.
I'm trying to write an article about this subject and I'd appreciate any
comments and thoughts you may have.
Juhana Stedt
[log in to unmask]
[log in to unmask]