This realization, he says, entails a profound transformation of the cinema as a medium. Such a dream has now been realised, he argues, with the transformation of the cinematic image (and sound) into discrete bits of manipulable digital information. Rodowick seems to be implying that the very idea of montage, as first expressed, and most influentially, by Sergei Eisenstein, is the manifestation of a kind of ontological dream for the cinema, a dream of absolute technical control over all details. The triumph of “montage” is understood to be a consequence of a technical change. Even an unaltered digital still is already a work of montage in this respect” (2007, 166). Rodowick, for instance, argues that, in its new “virtual” form, “as constituted through digital capture or synthesis, the image is always ‘montage,’ in the sense of a singular combination of discrete elements. Film editing has, it is often said, become part of a more extensive process of digital montage. Yet it is very difficult to explain what, precisely, this change means formally and aesthetically, and whether the change is so fundamental as to have altered the very “ontology” of the cinema, as is commonly claimed. Of all the various elements of the cinematic apparatus that have been affected as a result of the incorporation of digital or computer technologies, it is arguably editing that has changed the most, and perhaps to an extent greater than ever before. En s’appuyant sur un compte-rendu plus adéquat de l’ontologie du cinéma, il est possible de voir comment cela s’inscrit dans la continuité de l’histoire de l’art cinématographique. Dans la transition entre montage analogue et montage numérique, les moyens de création de compositions cinématographiques audiovisuelles multimédia ont été consolidés, dans la mesure où la plupart des médias sont désormais restitués sous forme numérique, ce qui permet des manipulations et des modifications plus complètes et plus fines. ![]() En effet, l’auteur affirme, comme Noël Carroll, que le cinéma n’est pas un « médium », mais plutôt une forme d’art qui a recourt à un large éventail de médias. À la suite du philosophe Gregory Currie, l’auteur soutient qu’une analyse ontologique ne peut être fondée sur la description d’un supposé aspect physique nécessaire ou définitif du cinéma en tant que médium. Bien que la théorie du cinéma fasse souvent référence aux effets « ontologiques » du changement technologique, elle définit rarement ce terme de manière explicite. RésuméĬet article rend compte de l’avènement du montage numérique. On the basis of a more adequate account of the ontology of the cinema, this can be seen as continuous with the history of film art. In the transition from film editing to digital montage, the means for the creation of multimedia, audiovisual cinematic compositions have been consolidated in so far as most media are now rendered in digital form, allowing for more comprehensive and fine-grained manipulations and modifications. Indeed, the author argues, following Noël Carroll, that the cinema is not a “medium,” but rather an art form that employs a wide range of media. ![]() Following the philosopher Gregory Currie, the author argues that an ontological analysis cannot begin from an accounting of any putatively necessary or definitive physical aspect of the cinema as a medium. ![]() While reference is often made in film theory to the “ontological” effects of technological change, the term itself is rarely defined in explicit fashion. This article offers an account of the advent of digital editing, or digital montage.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |