I'm going to try and get to the crux of this disagreement this time.
At 8:29 PM -0700 4/22/99, Paul Henry Rosenberg wrote:
>> >As for your faux populism
>>
>> Accusing someone of elitism is not the same thing as claiming to be a
>> populist. You're reading stuff that's not in my message if you think this
>> is about being down with the people.
>
>I'm all ears, Johnathan.
That's Jonathan. And we'll talk about the difference between Cultural Marxism and populism another time.
>So much for the theory that narrative filmmaking is an elitist
>(academic?) plot.
I'm an academic. Observing that this line of work privileges the written word over other modes of knowing isn't an attempted slight on the people I spend my working life with.
>But that's NOT what Carl actually said, it's a considerable
>embellishment, courtesy of you. Carl simply wrote:
>
>>The art of special effects has advanced at the expense of
>>characterization and plot development. Movies have contributed vastly
>>to the domination of imagery over the written word and to the
>>stupefaction of people in general.
>
>I would agree with this as an almost trivially obvious statement.
Here's where we disagree. I would like to see this statement actually argued for, demonstrated, substantiated, rather than hearing about its obviousness. As Stuart Hall says, "what's most obvious is what's most ideological." Other writers on ideology make a similar point. Carl's claim and your reassertion are not obvious to me. His claim about the web being the revenge of the literate (revenge against whom?) is both factually incorrect and rather curious given his general suspicion of images.
But then, maybe *I've* been stupefied by watching the Matrix! I should have thought of that sooner. This is your big chance to get me back on track.
>It's
>a LONG way aways from claiming "that any film with narrative and
>character development makes people smart."
No, but it does claim that movies contribute to making people stupid. That's straight outta Carl's quote. I think he's wrong, and I'd like to see that assertion backed up with something other than reassertion.
>Oh, God, such crude reductionism! But beside the point, really. For
>the sake of Carl's complaint, what difference does it make WHY it goes
>on?
Well, I'll plead guilty to nonsequiter and issue a retraction. Reductionism, well, I don't think causal arguments are always reductionist, and if they are, I can think of no better example of reductionism than to assert that the very presence of special effects in film contributes to making people stupid.
>I say that there are multiple forms of intelligence, but that the loss
>of narrative-oriented intelligence is visible everywhere around us, and
>most certainly undermines the capacity for sustained critical thought.
>In those terms, it's a loooong ways down from "The Twilight Zone" to
>"The X-Files".
So you can tell by watching the X-Files that people have less "intelligence" (your word, not mine) in whatever form than those people who watch the Twilight Zone? What about people who watch both?
>I disagree. People continue to grow and develop after reaching
>maturity, but in more subtle ways. So it is with media as well. Each
>has its own particular basic "language," it's "grammar" which derives in
>part from chance and convention (which way you write your language
>before you even invent the book, for example) and in part from the
>nature of the medium itself. Once this basic stuff has been worked out,
>then further growth and development is WITHIN the framework of it's
>mature form -- (even including that which is AGAINST it).
I don't believe this on its face, and I don't know of any credible media theorist or media historian (I don't just mean academics, I mean people who have actually spent some time thinking about this stuff before writing about it) who makes this argument. If you do, I'd love to read them. Sounds a little McLuhanite, with that structuralist twist of saying everything is just like language. Along with C.S. Peirce, I'm of the school that language is a special instance of communication, not the other way around.
>> They're institutions and ought to be considered
>> that way. They aren't texts that people encounter in a vaccuum that then
>> hypodermically inject stupidity or intelligence into their audiences.
>
>A rather bad dichotomy to foist off on anyone, I should think.
OK, if you show me how you can tell that people are dumber by looking at the X-Files and comparing it to the Twilight Zone, then I'll agree that it's an unfair dichotomy.
>> >As for "What's necessary about linear plot and character development in
>> >creative art anyway?" Gosh, I don't think ANYONE thinks its necessary
>> >in a string quartet, a raga or the art and architecture of a Mosque.
>>
>> Some people who like string quartets make arguments equivalent to Carl's
>> all the time -- about the inherent superiority of the sonata form, e.g.
>
>The Late Quartets RULE, dude! Everyone knows that.
D00D!
>But there was a reason it took the music world nearly a century to be
>able to comprehend them. It took that long before they learned how to
>"read" them. This is because there IS
There's that bare assertion again. IS NOT, I say. Argue your point: don't just assert -- after all, you're the one who signs off "reason and democracy." Let's have some reason.
>an element of necessity at work
>in art. It's the existence of this necessity which gives creativity to
>work with -- and against.
I know creative people have to eat like everyone else, and I believe that creativity (in whatever form) is a necessary part of life for people to be happy. I have no idea what you mean by "an element of necessity at work in art" in the above statement.
--Jonathan, for your ears