# Marc Furstenau (2018). *Film Editing, Digital Montage, and the “Ontology” of Cinema*. : . > [!INFO] > Type:: [[&]] > Title:: Film Editing, Digital Montage, and the “Ontology” of Cinema > Author(s): [[Marc Furstenau]] > Year:: 2018 > Tags:: > DOI:: 10/gjp2c8 > Citekey:: furstenau_film_2018 > ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: Film Editing, Digital Montage, and the “Ontology” of Cinema](zotero://select/items/@furstenau_film_2018) > ReviewedDate:: [[2023-02-22]] > > [!CITATION] > > ``` > > [@furstenau_film_2018] > > ``` ## Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@furstenau_film_2018]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` ## Summary > “Film editing has, it is often said, become part of a more extensive process of digital montage” (Furstenau, 2018, p. 29) [[David Norman Rodowick|Rodowick]]의 "편집하지 않은, 바뀌지 않은 디지털 스틸이라고 하더라도 이미 하나의 몽타쥬 작업이다" ([[@rodowick_virtual_2007]], 166) 이라고 말한 것을 인용하며 그의 생각이 [[Sergei Eisenstein|Eisenstein]]에게 가장 영향을 받았다고 이야기 한다. 어떠한 의미의 manifestation of a kind of ontological dream for the cinema. **모든 디테일을 향한 절대적 기술적 제어의 꿈** 글쓴이는 에디팅(현재 디지털의 에디팅에 존재적 변화가 생겼다고 주장하며)은 역사적으로 물질적으로 자르고 붙이는 필름 스트립의 작업이었다고 이야기 한다. 306-313 > “Yuri Tsivian ([[@tsivian_montage_2014]], 306) has argued that there is even a further distinction to be made, between “cutting,” which is the removal of anything superfluous in the original filmed footage, a merely technical and procedural task, without any larger or more extensive conceptual motivation, and “editing,” which he says is “cutting according to continuity rules.”” (Furstenau, 2018, p. 30) Yuri Tsivian의 경우는 여기서 더 나아가 "커팅"과 "에디팅"을 분리시킨다. 커팅이 단순하게 superfluous한 것을 잘라내는 기술적 procedural 작업인 반면에 에디팅의 경우 "cutting according to continuity rules." 여기서 더 나아가 몽타주와 에디팅을 나누며 몽타주는 > “may mean one of two things: a fast-paced sequence designed to bridge a lapse of days or decades, or the practice of editing in the mirror of theory,” (Furstenau, 2018, p. 30) 이는 명백히 [[Sergei Eisenstein|에이젠]]과 [[Vsevolod Pudovkin|Pudovkin]]의 이론적 주장이기도 하다. 하지만 글쓴이는 모든 에디팅이 소비에트 스타일이 아니더라도 역사적으로 "can be understood to be in the service of a theory of cinematic expression, explicit or not, necessarily guiding the intentional and purposive process of expressive transformation" (31) 그리고 글쓴이는 [[André Gaudreault]]와 [[Philippe Marion]]의 말을 빌려 디지털 테크놀로지에 의해 우리의 전통적 에디팅에 대한 개념이 변화했다고 이야기 한다. 그리고 원래 촬영 이후 편집하는 것이 기본이었던 것이 - digital capture - image synthesis - compositing 의 세가지 interconnected phases로 변화했다.[[@gaudreault_end_2015]] 그들에 따르면 디지털 몽타주는 새로운 것 같지만 실재로 역사적 지속성에 매우 민감하며 그것이 그 발달 과정에서 명백하게 들어났다. 그러한 이유로 이제 디지털 몽타주는 painting 과 graphic novel과 같아졌다. > “for certain filmmakers with a perfectionist bent this potential control offered by digital technology can be particularly reassuring, because the control it gives them is over the entire creative process” ([[@gaudreault_end_2015]], 56-57)” (Furstenau, 2018, p. 32) > “Technological change, they argue, is in fact a constitutive part of what they helpfully call the “cultural practice” of cinema, and the incorporation of digital technology is only the latest (and surely will not be the last) instance of this.” (Furstenau, 2018, p. 32) > 기술 변화는 사실 그들이 영화라고 부르는 "문화적 관행"의 구성적인 부분이며, 디지털 기술의 통합은 이것의 가장 최근의 사례일 뿐이며, 확실히 마지막 예는 아닐 것이라고 그들은 주장합니다. 가장 중요한 포인트는 디지털 몽타주가 "to ontologize" > “In the novel grammatical form that they give to this familiar philosophical term, whereby it becomes possible “to ontologize,” that is, as they seem to be implying, to make some aspect of a phenomenon which had been contingent a necessary and defining component, they point to a possible accounting of the incorporation of digital technologies into the cinema.” (Furstenau, 2018, p. 32) #### Ontology of Film Art [[@currie_ontology_1989]]에서 [[Gregory Currie]]는 예술 작업은 인간과 매우 가깝게 연결되어 있고 특히 아티스트의 액션과 가깝다고 이야기 한다. 이 생각은 매우 넓게 이해되고 있지만 이러한 관계를 precise하게 만드는 것은 어렵다 → [[Gregory Currie|Currie]]의 목표 - 모든 예술의 공통적인 것을 찾아서 "예술 작품이 어떤 것인지를 명시"(2) - "예술 작품이 하나의 종류일 수 있다고 가정하는 것은 시대에 뒤떨어진 형이상학적 낙관주의의 산물처럼 보일 수 있습니다." (3) - 철학자들은 "철학자들은 존재론적 문제를 다소 경계하는 경향이 있으며, 언어와 의미에 관한 논문을 통해 접근하는 것을 선호한다"(11) 가장 먼저 [[Gregory Currie|Currie]]에게 있어서 존재론은, 존재론이 이미 철학적으로도 모호한 개념인 것은 차치하더라도, 특정한 phenomena를 분리해서 what they *are*—what it is to *be* a work of film art, to *be* a cinematic work 를 묻는 것이라고 할 수 있다. 즉, 어떻게 작동하는가를 묻는 인간의 행동과 의도에 대한 질문하는 것이다. 이 세상엔 일반 존재론 account로 하기엔 너무나 많은 다른 종류의 아트가 있다. 하지만 [[Gregory Currie|Currie]]는 "no work of art is physical object"이며 예술 작엄을 "action type" 이라고 주장하며 물질적 material 차이를 배제시키므로서 방법을 제시한다. > “He argues, instead, that a work of art is an “action type, the tokens of which are particular actions performed on particular occasions by particular people” ([[@currie_ontology_1989]], 7).” 같은 방식으로 [[Dale Jacquette]]의 경우도 예를 들어, 데일 자켓은 그의 저서 『온톨로지』에서 "마음의 존재론을 독특하게 특징짓는 사유의 특성과 의도성을 어떤 식으로든 공유하는 사유의 산물로서가 아니라면 문화의 형이상학과 언어, 예술, 인공물의 존재론을 이해할 수 없다"고 주장한다.([[@jacquette_ontology_2002]], 269) 반대로 [[André Bazin|Bazin]]에 의해 쌓여진 필름의 존재론의 경우 비-의도적 시네마의 물질적 재료적 퀄리티에 주목한다 → 특히 사진적 물질 하지만 글쓴이의 경우 duallistic value (물질적 intentionality) 이는 영화이론에서 또한 같다 > “which have very often been understood first of all to be particular kinds of physical objects, and so different as such from other kinds of artworks.” (Furstenau, 2018, p. 35) 영화 이론가들은 일반적으로 철학자들에 대해 커리가 말한 것처럼 형이상학적이고 본질주의적인 설명을 경계하지만, 일종의 존재론적 분석에 대한 오랜 노력이 있으며, 이는 아마도 가장 직접적으로 "사진 이미지의 온톨로지"(1971)에 대한 앙드레 바쟁의 유명하고 영향력 있는 설명에서 파생된 것으로, 최근 Daniel Morgan([[@morgan_rethinking_2006]])과 [[Philip Rosen]]([[@rosen_change_2001]]) 등이 적극적으로 옹호하고 있다. 이 설명에 따르면 영화는 사진적인 것으로서, 바진이 "존재론적으로" 분석한 것처럼 영화 제작자의 행위보다는 사진의 자동적 과정, 즉 대상 자체, 사진 이미지에 내재된 가치에서 그 가치를 도출하며, 이는 스탠리 카벨([[@cavell_world_1979]])과 D.N. 로도윅([[@rodowick_virtual_2007]])과 같은 후기 작가들이 강조한 사실이다. **글쓴이는 시네마가 사실 다른 아트들과 존재론적으로 공유하고 있다고 주장한다.** 이를 위해 [[Gregory Currie|Currie]]의 "action types"를 빌려와 아티스트가 특별한 효과를 achieve하는 것 > “We cannot understand what art *is* except by understanding how art *works*” ([[@currie_ontology_1989]], 11; emphasis in original)” (Furstenau, 2018, p. 35) 영화에서 그것은 "the relations established between their various parts, as a multimedia art form." (36) 그리고 여기서 에디팅, 몽타주, 혹은 "the mirror of theory"를 바탕으로 이러한 수행은 하나의 이론적 가이드이다. [[Gregory Currie|Currie]]에게 있어서 > "예술 작품을 감상하는 것은 단순히 시각적 패턴, 단어 또는 사운드 시퀀스와 같은 최종 결과물을 감상하는 것이 아니라 그 패턴이나 구조에 도달한 예술가의 성취를 감상하는 것이다." ([[@currie_ontology_1989]], 68) 그리고 이러한 성취는 패턴과 구조로 찾아온다 (68) #### 디지털 에디팅 [[Noël Carroll]]은 에디팅의 기반의 가장 개념적이고 이념적인 기술을 설명한다. the *causal* process of photographic reOcording (사진) ≠ the *intentional* and creative use of the recorded material (영화) 에이팅은 이러한 상황에서 매우 특별하게 중요하다. > “it is a means for creatively and assertively rearranging whatever events and objects the camera took in and, therefore, it affords wide latitude for artistic invention and creation” ([[@carroll_philosophy_2008]], 41)” (Furstenau, 2018, p. 36) > "카메라가 포착한 사건과 사물을 창의적이고 단호하게 재배치하는 수단이며, 따라서 예술적 발명과 창조를 위한 넓은 여지를 제공한다"([[@carroll_philosophy_2008]], 41)"(Furstenau, 2018, 36쪽). 하지만 그러면서도 [[Noëll Carroll|Carroll]]의 경우 에디팅이 다른 테크닉들보다 특별한 것은 아니라고 하는데 개인적으로 그에게 있어서 그건 어떠한 스타일라이제이션 정도이지 않을까 싶다. 100여년의 역사에서 필름의 에디팅 테크놀로지는 거의 변화하지 않았으며 여전히 physical procedure이다. ^[For a comprehensive history of film editing technology and style see Fairservice (2001) and Keil and Whissel (2016), both of which describe the various technical changes that have indeed taken place, while insisting, as Keil and Whissel say, that “compared to such technology-intensive crafts as sound mixing or cinematography, editing has been relatively unaffected by major technological developments” (7). The most important examples of such mechanical systems are the Moviola, introduced around 1925, an flatbed systems such as the Steenbeck, introduced in the 1950s and 60s, yet both were merely elaborate apparatuses for doing what had always been done—physically cutting and splicing filmstrips.] - cut smaller pieces and spliced together with other segments from "linear" process (디지털에선 random access가 가능함) - assembling sequences - 디지털에서는 좀더 이 프로세스가 쉬워짐 더 나아가 [[Noëll Carroll|Carroll]]은 필름은 다른 아트처럼 하나의 미디엄으로 만들어지지 않았으며 but many media ([[@carroll_philosophy_2008]], 8) > “the medium does not fix the parameters of style, but stylistic ambitions dictate the production or reinvention of the medium.” (Furstenau, 2018, p. 37) > “For many, new digital editing technologies seem to have transformed the cinema at what is typically described as an “ontological” level, by allowing for more extensive, internal modifications than had been possible during the era of the physical cutting and splicing of already composed photographic imagery.” (Furstenau, 2018, p. 40) > "많은 사람들에게 새로운 디지털 편집 기술은 이미 구성된 사진 이미지를 물리적으로 자르고 이어 붙이던 시대에 가능했던 것보다 더 광범위하고 내부적인 수정을 허용함으로써 일반적으로 '존재론적' 수준에서 영화를 변화시킨 것으로 보입니다." [[Lev Manovich]] 또한 현재디지털 이미지는 필름의 indexical 아이덴티티를 부스고 페인팅의 manual 미디어와 분간할 수 없게되었다고 주장한다. [[Lucy Fischer]]의 경우 과거 필름의 에이팅이 샷 사이의 관계를 plastic relation을 만들어내는 것이라면 현재는 "synthetic relations"을 샷 안에서 만들어내는 것으로 말할 수 있다고 말한다. ([[@fischer_film_1999]], 81) [[David Norman Rodowick|로도윅]]이러한 디지털 작업을 "fully imaginative and intentional artifact"(2007, 169)라고 부른다. ## Annotation **밑에 페이지 넘버 다 -1 할것** > it is arguably editing that has changed the most, and perhaps to an extent greater than ever before[Furstenau 2018:30](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=2) > Film editing has, it is often said, become part of a more extensive process of digital montage[Furstenau 2018:30](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=2) > D.N. Rodowick...Even an unaltered digital still is already a work of montage in this respect” (2007, 166).[Furstenau 2018:31](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=3) > 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[Furstenau 2018:31](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=3) > This “new ontology,” in Rodowick’s account, is the result of all cinematic imagery having been subsumed by the logic of “montage,” which he contrasts with “film editing.”[Furstenau 2018:31](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=3) > Yuri Tsivian (2015a, 306) has argued that there is even a further distinction to be made, between “cutting,” which is the removal of anything superfluous in the original filmed footage, a merely technical and procedural task, without any larger or more extensive conceptual motivation, and “editing,” which he says is “cutting according to continuity rules.”[Furstenau 2018:31](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=3) > with the elaboration of “rules,”[Furstenau 2018:31](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=3) > mirror of theory,” by which he seems to mean the sort of explicit bridge a lapse of days or decades, or the practice of editing in the “may mean one of two things: a fast-paced sequence designed to tinguishes from narrative “editing.” > The term montage, he says, which comes to be called “montage,” which Tsivian distinguishes from narrative “editing.” > The term montage, he says, “may mean one of two things: a fast-paced sequence designed to bridge a lapse of days or decades, or the practice of editing in the mirror of theory,” by which he seems to mean the sort of explicit theoretical statements of, for example, Eisenstein and Pudovkin.[Furstenau 2018:32](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=4) > There is a sense, though, as André Gaudreault and Philippe Marion (2015, 55) have argued, that the “ontology of the filmic image,” as they put it, has been transformed by digital technologies, and that “our traditional conception of editing is modified as a result.”[Furstenau 2018:32](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=4) > Gaudreault and Marion offer an initial “systematizing” of this “idea of editing (and even pre-editing) which, in the digital kingdom, merges with the very genesis of the image,” and they identify “three overlapping and interconnected phases: digital capture, image synthesis, and compositing. . . . Digital media mix these three stages of the expressive process and even do away with the boundaries between them, because the intervention of the ‘creator/­ peaker’ can be exercised indistinctly on the whole, s[Furstenau 2018:32](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=4) > Gaudreault and Marion[Furstenau 2018:33](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=5) > sensitive to the historical continuities that are manifested in its development, and the extent to which the cinema may now be seen to be more clearly related to the history of the graphic arts more generally—to, for instance, painting and the graphic novel[Furstenau 2018:33](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=5) > for certain filmmakers with a perfec- tionist bent this potential control offered by digital technology can be particularly reassuring, because the control it gives them is over the entire creative process” (56-57)[Furstenau 2018:33](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=5) > Technological change, they argue, is in fact a constitutive part of what they helpfully call the “cultural practice” of cinema, and the incorporation of digital tech- nology is only the latest (and surely will not be the last) instance of this.[Furstenau 2018:33](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=5) ���0�[Furstenau 2018:33](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=5) > Specifically, they point to the emer- gence of digital montage, which reveals important continuities, as well as undeniable differences, with the cinema of the past.[Furstenau 2018:33](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=5) > Since then, the effects of digital editing have indeed received careful theoretical consideration, yet certain assumptions about film style, and about the ontology of the cinema, remain in place, specifically around questions of creativity and intention.[Furstenau 2018:34](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=6) > art works are in some sense closely connected with human action—in particular with the actions of artists,”[Furstenau 2018:34](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=6) > Yet Currie undertakes to find the means to do so, specifically by arguing that “no work of art is a physical object,” dispensing with the problem of material dif- ferences between artworks[Furstenau 2018:34](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=6) ?[Furstenau 2018:34](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=6) > He argues, instead, that a work of art is an “action type, the tokens of which are particular actions performed on particular occasions by particular people” (7).[Furstenau 2018:34](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=6) > “artworks exhibit purposiveness essentially in being composed of elements of some artistic medium, whereas physical objects are composed entirely of physical parts (which, relative to some embodied art, may serve as its physical medium)” (1980, 42)[Furstenau 2018:35](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=7) > Yet, and like with any art, the ontological[Furstenau 2018:35](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=7) > qualities of the cinema emerge only from the intentional purposes to which the physical materials are put, and we need not accept a dualistic account of such an art form that ascribes an independent aesthetic value to the sheer fact of a supposedly unique physical constitution[Furstenau 2018:36](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=8) > which have very often been understood first of all to be particular kinds of phys- ical objects, and so different as such from other kinds of artworks.[Furstenau 2018:36](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=8) > ontological analysis, ­ derived perhaps most directly from André Bazin’s famous and influ- ential account of the “Ontology of the Photographic Image” (1971), defended recently, and vigorously, by Daniel Morgan (2006) and [[Philip Rosen]] (2001), among others.[Furstenau 2018:36](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=8) > derives its value less from the actions of the filmmaker than the automatic process of photography, a value imbued in the object itself, the photographic image, a fact emphasized by later writers such as Stanley Cavell (1971) and D.N. Rodowick (2007).[Furstenau 2018:36](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=8) > I will try to show how the cinema in fact shares an ontolog- ical identity with other works of art, all understood as what Currie calls “action types,” as efforts by artists to achieve specific effects by engaging observers of their work by whatever means available.[Furstenau 2018:36](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=8) > We cannot understand what art is except by under- standing how art works” (1989, 11; emphasis in original)[Furstenau 2018:36](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=8) > “look at the ways in which works are to be judged and appreciated. This will provide a set of constraints on a theory about what artworks are. We can then see ‘work of art’ as a term occurring in an overall aesthetic theory which describes and analyzes the sorts of relations that hold between us as[Furstenau 2018:36](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=8) > critics and observers, and the works themselves” (11-12).[Furstenau 2018:37](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=9) > An account of editing, or montage, if understood as a prac- tice performed in “the mirror of theory,” must have, as part of that account, a specific conception of the “theory” guiding it[Furstenau 2018:37](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=9) > —but an appreciation of the artist’s achievement in arriving at that pat- tern or structure” (68)[Furstenau 2018:37](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=9) > it is a means for creatively and assertively rearranging whatever events and objects the camera took in and, therefore, it affords wide latitude for artistic inven- tion and creation” (2008, 41)[Furstenau 2018:37](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=9) > For most of the history of the cinema, little about the basic tech- nology for film editing had changed. Despite some important tech- nical developments or enhancements, and the introduction of relatively elaborate mechanical systems, editing remained a rudi- mentary physical procedure.[Furstenau 2018:38](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=10) > But if the new systems are understood, in the most basic sense, as providing efficiencies in film production, it is because they make it easier to do what had been characteristic of such production, which throughout most of the history of cinema has been to combine disparate material—visual, auditory, textual, graphic and so on—into a single, complex compo- sition[Furstenau 2018:38](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=10) > t, “the medium does not fix the parameters of style, but stylistic ambitions dictate the production or reinven- tion of the medium.”[Furstenau 2018:38](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=10) > V.F. Perkins once described film theory quite significantly as “the embodiment of twin mystiques, one of the image and the other of montage” (1972, 17)[Furstenau 2018:40](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=12) > Creativity in the cinema, as in any art, is based in but is not simply determined by the physical qualities of the medium.[Furstenau 2018:40](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=12) > “While film montage privileges temporal montage over montage within a shot—technically the latter was much more difficult to achieve—compositing makes them equal” (2001, 155).[Furstenau 2018:41](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=13) > While the cinema may still be characterized for the most part by a realist style, the source or value of its realistic representations is understood to have been altered as a result of the change in the degree of control provided to the filmmaker; this increased control is seen as the result of a material change to the physical constitution of the medium[Furstenau 2018:41](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=13) > Lucy Fischer notes that while editing had been limited in the past to establishing what she calls “plastic relations between shots,” now it can mean establishing “synthetic relations within shots” (1999, 81)[Furstenau 2018:42](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=14) > Such accounts of the effects of new digital editing technology, which tend simply to assume a necessary and direct correlation between the physical basis of filmmaking and the aesthetic value of the cinema, are based on what I argue is an untenable dualism (like that which Margolis seeks to obviate in accounts of art more generally), a distinction between the cinema’s supposed raw mate- rial (the photographic image), which is thought to possess its own unique aesthetic value, and the means for the organization of that material (editing or montage), assumed to have a quite different if not in fact contradictory aesthetic value.[Furstenau 2018:42](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=14) > Editing is the intentional means by which an expressive or rhetorical value is imposed upon mate- rial that had been generated through an automatic, causal process of photochemical registration[Furstenau 2018:42](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=14) > Most “ontological” analysis of the cinema begin with a consider- ation of the physical basis, with the causal nature of photographic registration, rather than the more general function to which any number of possible physical bases would be suitable.[Furstenau 2018:43](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=15) > Ontology,[Furstenau 2018:43](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=15) > means to ask how they work, which is to raise the questions of human action and intention[Furstenau 2018:44](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/8UURNNRD?page=16) ### Related ```dataview LIST FROM [[@furstenau_film_2018]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ```