## [[Tom Gunning]] (2007). *Moving Away from the Index: Cinema and the Impression of Reality*. : . > [!INFO] > Type:: [[&]] > Title:: Moving Away from the Index: Cinema and the Impression of Reality > Author(s): [[Authors/Tom Gunning]] > Year:: 2007 > Tags:: > DOI:: 10.1215/10407391-2006-022 > Citekey:: gunning_moving_2007 > ZoteroURI:: [Open in Zotero: Moving Away from the Index: Cinema and the Impression of Reality](zotero://select/items/@gunning_moving_2007) > ReviewedDate:: [[2023-03-23]] ## Citation ```latex [@gunning_moving_2007] ``` ## Related ```dataview TABLE file.aliases AS "Title" FROM [[@gunning_moving_2007]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ``` ## Summary - [[Tom Gunning|Gunning]]이 과거 연구자들을 접근하는 자세 > “But I do think the time has come to take stock of the historical and transforming nature of cinema as a medium and of its dependence and differentiation from other media.” (Gunning, 2007, p. 35) > 하지만 이제는 영화라는 매체의 역사성과 변화하는 특성, 그리고 다른 미디어와의 의존성과 차별성에 대해 다시 한 번 생각해 볼 때가 왔다고 생각합니다. ## Annotation The understanding of realism, often "depended on cinema's status as an index, one of the triad of signs in the semiotics of Charles Sanders Price. Film's indexical nature has almost always (and usually exclusively) been derived from its photographic aspects." (29) "For Peirce the index functions as part of a complex system of interlocking concepts that comprise not only a philosophy of signs but a theory of the mind and its relation to the world. (30) However, (with the exception of Gilles Deleuze, for who Peirce's system, rather than the index, is primary) within theories of cinema, photography, and new media, the index has been largely abstracted from this system, given a rather simple definition as the existential trace or impression left by an object, and used to describe (and solve) a number of problems dealing with the way the light-based image media refer to the world. (30) In fact, Peirce's discussion of the index includes a page range of signs and indications, including "anything which focuses attention" ([[@peirce_philosophical_1955]], 106-111) and the general hailing and deictic functions of language and gesture.   [[Tom Gunning]]이 말하는 것은 리얼리즘에 대한 다른 각도에서의 접근, indexical로만 접근하는 것은 이미 한계점을 드러내고 있고 그 유용성도 이미 사라진 것은 아닌가 하는 의심을 드러내고 있다. 즉 거닝이 말하기로는 "best way" 혹은 "only way"도 아니라고 주장하는 것. 가장 처음 퍼스의 index를 가져온 것은 [[Peter Wollen]], [[Peter Wollen|Wollen]]은 퍼스와 바쟁을 비교함. (Wollen, The Semiolog of the Cinema in Signs and Meaning in the Cinema, 1969, 116-24 [[@wollen_signs_2013]]) […] at least in the traditional reception of Bazin's theory, cinematic realism depended on the medium's photographic nature. (31) […] referring to the photograph as "a decal or approximate tracing." ([[@morgan_rethinking_2006]], 441-81) > The photographic image is the object itself, the object freed from temporal contingencies. No matter how fuzzy, distorted, or discolored, no matter how lacking in documentary value the image may be, it proceeds, by virtue of its genesis, from the ontology of the model; it is the model. ([[@morgan_rethinking_2006]], 450, [[Daniel Morgan]]의 revised version) "But whereas pierce made his observation in order to found a logic, Bazin wished to found an aesthetic." (Wollen, op. cit. p. 126) Likewise, in a recent essay Daniel Morgan makes a convincing and full argued case (different from mine) that Bazin's theory of cinematic realism should not be approached through the theory of the index at all. [[@morgan_rethinking_2006]] Bazin describes the realism of the photograph as an "irrational power to bear away our faith." ([[@bazin_ontology_1960]], 8) 전체 인용은: > A very faithful drawing may actually tell us more about the model but despite the promptings of our critical intelligence it will never have the irrational power of the photograph to bear away our faith. ([[@bazin_ontology_1960]], 8) > 매우 충실한 그림은 실제로 모델에 대해 더 많은 것을 알려줄 수 있지만, 우리의 비판적 지성의 자극에도 불구하고 사진의 비합리적인 힘이 우리의 믿음을 무너뜨리지는 못할 것입니다. ([[@bazin_ontology_1960]], 8) 클래식 연구들 "essentialist" > Within the academy, the study of film theory has often been bifurcated between "classical film theory" and "contemporary film theory." Insofar as this division refers to omitting more than an arbitrary sense of the past and present, "classical" film theories have been useful defined as theories that seek to isolate and define the "essence" of cinema, while "contemporary" theories rely on discourses of semiotics and psychoanalysis to describe the relation between film and spectator. ([[@carroll_philosophical_1988]], 10-15) “Film history provides a challenge to rethinking film theory, arguing for the importance of using the recent visibility of film’s multiple media environment as a moment for reflection and perhaps redefinition.” (Gunning, 2007, p. 36) “In contemporary film theory, a priori proscriptions as well as a posteriori definitions that privilege only certain aspects of film have given way to approaches (like semiotics, psychoanalysis, or cognitivism) that seem to ignore or minimize differences between media in favor of broader cultural or biological conditions.” (Gunning, 2007, p. 36) 새롭게 필름 이론을 생각하는 방식으로 제시한 것이 여러 미디어 환경 속에서 unified 된 에센스를 찾는 것이 아니라 (클래시컬 필름 이론에 반대하여) 서로 조화를 이루며 경쟁하는 관계에 있다고 주장 [[phenomenology]] 방식으로 경험하기 전에 논리적으로 정의하는 방식을 통해서. 초기 영화 이론은 편파적이 될 수 있는 위험을 가지고 있지만 특정한 측면에 주목하며 그 힘을 설명할 수 있도록 하는 논쟁적 가치를 지니고 있다 → 영화가 단순히 기계적 재현의 방식이 아니라 언어와 유사한 시학과 수사학을 창조할 수 있다는 사실을 확립한 20년대 소련 이론가들이 편집을 강조한 것도 바로 이러한 맥락. 소련의 이론가들에 대한 중요 레퍼런스로 소개한 것이 [[Jean Epstein|Epstein]], [[References/Authors/Germaine Dulac|Dulac]], ([[@abel_french_1988-2]]) [[Sergei Eisenstein|Eisenstein]] ([[@eisenstein_problem_1977]]). 셋 다 [[André Bazin|Bazin]]과 [[Siegfried Kracauer|Kracauer]]의 사진적 영화 이론이 dominance 되기 전 사람들. [[References/Authors/Germaine Dulac|Dulac]]은 1925년에 > “Le cinéma est l’art du mouvement et de la lumière” [Cinema is the art of movement and light]. [[@dulac_aesthetics_1982]] >“a visual symphony, a rhythm of arranged movements in which the shifting of a line or of a volume in a changing cadence creates emotion without any crystallization of ideas” [[@dulac_aesthetics_1982]], 8 [[Germaine Dulac]], "Aesthetics, Obstacles, Integral Cinegraphie," (Trans. Stuart Liebman) in Abel, op. cit., p. 394 " 그가 보기에 20년대 프랑스 소련 이론가들은 모두 에디팅, 카메라 움직임, 그리고 composition 에 의해서 만들어지는 리듬에 집중했다 → emotional reactions of film shaped by visual rhythms (38) I would point out (as Manovich’s archeology of the cinema also indicates) that far from being a product of new media, animation has always been part of cinema and that only the over-emphasis given to the photographic basis of cinema in recent decades can explain the neglect this historical and technological fact has encountered. ### Related ```dataview LIST FROM [[@gunning_moving_2007]] and -"Plans" and -"resources" ```