Ref: Danto, A. C. (2006) ‘Moving Pictures’, in Noël Carroll & Jinhee Choi (eds.) Philosophy of film and motion pictures: An Anthology. Blackwell philosophy anthologies. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub. p. 103-112

Section I (100-103) Moving Picture in Picture history (Comparison between film, painting, and drama)

섹션 1에서 단토가 가장 처음 하는 것은 필름을 연극에서 분리시키고 그 환경적 요인보다 이미지에 집중하는 것이다. 그에게 있어서 프로젝션은 필수요소가 아니다.

• Danto expresses his understanding of “moving pictures” in the evolutionary expansion of representational patinting history, that devleoped out of drawing.
• In relation to the drama (theatre), it is a seated audience focused on a common spectable. However it is not essential to film that they be projected onto screen, 그리고 단토가 예시로 든 무빙 빅처의 예시가 peepboxes 이다.
  • “it is due less to what is seen than to the fact that it is seen in a box […] a holy object deposited in the real world but not of it, belonging to another domain of reality […] that it logically excludes its spectators from the space and often the time it occupies.” (100)

• 단토에게 있어서 프로젝터가 관객을 그 상자 안으로 들어갈 수 있게했으며 연극처럼 같은 경험을 공유하게 만들었다. (100)
  • “The invention of the projector enabled the audience to enter the box, which then receded into the mere walls of the theater, and some different method for marking the space between audience and spectacle was required: but this way a lot of people could see the same show at once, with measurable economic advantages to the impresario, chairs being cheaper than optical contraptions like Reynaud’s praxinoscopes.” (101)
• 하지만 그럼에도 단토에게 있어서 film은 drama (theatre)라기보다 moving picture에 가깝고 그를 위해 프로스트의 예시를 든다.
  • chaque spectateur regardait comme dans un stereoscope un decor que n’etait que pour lui, quoique semblable au milliers d’autres, chacun pour soi, le reste des spectateurs (each spectator watched as in a stereoscope a setting which was only for him, although similar to the thousands of others, each for himself, the rest of the spectators). (101)
  • 다른 점을 들자면 1. for drama, each performance in the specific place and time (Plato ante rem) 2. the copy of two films of showing twice is not part of the concept of performance, not copy of one the other A(카피)가 B(원본)를 지목하지 않는다.
  • 또한 필름의 카피는 parallel compromises our appreciation of a showing 하지 않는다. 완벽히 똑같은 두개
    • But nothing remotely parallel compromises our appreciation of a showing which happens exactly to resemble another one, (101)
    • It is difficult to see that “an original” has any artistic significance in the appreciation of films, even though there are originals and epigones (모방자) amongst the filmmakers.
    • 사실 여기서 모방자라는 것은 똑같은 이미지의 복제가 아닌 (페인팅과 다르게) 스타일과 아이디어의 모방자라는 의미에 가깝지 않을까?
• Also, the experiences of the film and painting are different: See and Watch. “[T]here is nothing further to watch for patining.” (102) For film, however, even if there are films in which nothing happens, there is a “end” for the film.
  • “Film and drama seem essentially temporal in a way somewhat difficult to pin down directly,” but compare to the painting, it has beginings and endings. For film, it brings logical immobility. “Here, immobility has to be willed.” (103)

Section II (103-104) A method for distinguishing between things, which are otherwise exactly alike

• Here he mainly talks about methodological theory. 단토는 주로 방법론에 대해서 이야기를 나눈다. 즉 필름을 아트로서 아트의 안에서 어떻게 똑같을 수도 있는 두가지의 것이 다를 수 있는가에 대한 구별법을 통해서 철학적인 방법론을 찾는다. To deliver an inductive inference as correct, it is necessary to look outside of the set of possible hypotheses, which will challenge the consciousness that never would have been alive. “These factors will always be logically external to the thing in question.” (103)
  • (1) First example, Dream and veridical experience.
    • 예시로 어떤 사람들에게는 경험과 꿈은 다를 게 없다고 생각되어진다. 그리고 단지 다른 점은 경험은 그것이 무엇에 대한 경험인가에 대한 것에 의해 경험은 야기된다라는 것이다.
  • (2) Genuine and Fake
    • the distinction between them “must be established with reference to factors external to the works themselves” (103)
  • (3) Brillo boxes as artwork and real object
    • Warholl’s boxes as artwork not as sort of mere real objects from which they are indiscernile, which make two objects different.
    • When the eye fail to make a induction due to the exact same manifesting features, “understanding what art then is requires us to avert our eyes from the manifest appearance of things and ask what it is that does not meet the eye, which makes the difference between art and reality” […] “the difference is ontological and between things which otherwise are indiscriminable.” It is “the knowledge of this difference,” that makes diffrent experience. (103)
      • 모던시기에 우리는 예술 작업에 대해서 귀납적으로 이해할 것을 배웠다. 귀납적 개별적인 특수한 사실이나 현상에서 그러한 사례들이 포함되는 일반적인 결론을 이끌어내는 또는 역으로 보편성에서 구체성을 유도하는 추론 형식 -> 이것은 들뢰즈의 시네마 안에서의 방식이 아닌가?. 이러한 접근 방식은 어떠한 또 다른 것이 똑같은 특수한 사실이나 현상을 공유했을 때 설명하기를 실패하게 된다.
  • (4) 마지막으로 Film of a play and screenplay proper (106 Section III)

Section III (104-) Model and Motif in Photograph and Cinema in relation to the direct and spontaneous reality.

• Photography stands in interesting relations to the real world, because when x filas the causal condition for the photography of x, semandical identification filas as well. (104)
  • “Thus something exactly like a photograph of Rouen Cathedral is itself not of Rouen Cathedral if not caused by the Cathedral of Rouen.” (104)
  • the photography fails the semantic link to their causes when (1) 발생요건에 의심이 생기거나 (2) 그것이 믿음에서 생겼거나 (3) 아무리 똑같이 닮았다고 (= representations of the world on the routine assumptions of causality and denotation) 해도 그 의미는 사라질 것이다.
  • But these contrains (of something) can be broken when (1) 찍힌 cause를 모티브로 의미론적 구조(semantical structure of its own)를 가지게 하거나 (motif) (2) stand for something ulterior, 다른 해석의 법칙 (rule of interpretation)을 가지게 하는 것이다 (model)
    • For instance, (1)Mrs Siddons as the Muse of Tragedy (2) A model (who is exactly looks like Mrs Siddons) for a painting of the Muse of Tragedy. 레이놀드의 원 초상화에서 비극적 뮤즈로를 모티브로 시돈스 부인를 그린 것인 반면, 다른 가능한 세계에서는 그녀와 닮은 모델이 비극적 뮤즈 라는 주제(subejct)를 담기 위한 용기가 된다. (105)

Section IV The space and time in photography and cinema, action. It’s the semantical preoccupations

• Fianlly, he strated analyse representational differences in between photography and in cinema.
  • Photography inescapably dependent upon the objects it records (spontaneous reference to an external reality), while the cinema’s reality is considerably more elastic and less direct. (106)
    • The objects that we see in old movies have often far greater interest as motifs than as models, and the films themselves have a greater interest as inadvertent documentaries than as screenplays. (105)
    • 오브제트를 모티브로 다루었을 때 다큐멘터리, 모델로 다루었을 때 우의적 해석
  • 시네마의 현실과의 연결점에는 두가지가 있을 수 있다. (1) 연극이 필름으로 찍힌 것(film of a play = 햄릿 연극의 영상기록)과 (2) 카메라 앞에서 연극을 하듯이 찍은 것 (실재로는 연극이 없음) (screenplay proper = 햄릿 연극의 영상을 기록하듯 fake한 영상).
    • (1) Documentary about a particular performance of a particular play = film of a play (about actors) 연극을 찍은 필름 버전의 햄릿
      • 기록이 되면서 스테이지 앞에서 볼 수 없는 각도나 시선을 더할 수는 있지만 실재 이벤트는 그 밖에 있다. “But even so, it is a staged play which is being filmed, an external event having an existence external to the film” (106) “this intervention, however interesting, leaves the semantics of the situation unaffected (106)
      • 뉴욕의 그래피티를 찍은 사진이 그래피티가 무엇인가를 말하고 있다고 해도 그래피티에 관한 것으로 남는 것처럼, 이 영상은 다큐멘터리로 남는다.
    • (2) Screenplay proper 가 있을 수 있다. 무대에 오른 햄릿 형식으로 촬영된 필름 (==하지만 노엘 케롤이 말했듯이 여기 의미가 너무 애매모호하다==)
      • The actors are not part of what the film is about. Even if they are palying the actors, it is not about the persosn who is play\ but whose roles they play. For instance, Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)
• 연극에서는 그 연극의 연속성이 배역으로 진행되고 영화에서는 그 연속성이 배우로 진행된기에 (film roles are often ephemeral (107) 여기서 위험성이 존재한다.
  • Filmed documentation of play -> actors as models rather than as motifs (someone playing as actor’s of Hamlet rather than actor playing the Hamlet) 연기자를 보는 것이 아닌 누군가 햄릿을 볼 위험성, 즉 여기선 performance가 중요하다.
  • Screenplay proper -> actors as motif rather than as models (actor playing himself as Hamlet rather than Hamlet himself) -> star system
    • So the fact that films use actors ought not to mislead us into thinking of film as an essentially performative art inasmuch as nothing counts as a different performance of the same work (107)

어떻게 사진으로 찍힌 공간(혹은 시간)과 액션이 행해진 공간(혹은 시간)이 다른가? 단토가 생각하기에 moving picture의 moving은 subject의 움직임이 아니라 semantical movement 이다.

• Moving pictures are just that: pictures which move, not just (or necessarily at all) pictures of moving things. (108)
  • Before the moving picture, it would not have been illuminating to call nonmoving piacture as nonmoving. 하지만 with statues, the possibility of movement was an ancient option. 예시: The statues of Daedalus, created by ancient Greek sculptor Daedalus, and in modern time, Alexander Calder’s mobiles and invented predicate “stabile” to designate his non-moving statues.
  • As “it had long been recognized that the properties of the thing represented need not also be properties of the representation itself.” (109) But some properties should be shared by representationand subject.
  • 즉 빨간색으로 칠해진 대나무는 빨간색이기에 yellownes 그런것이 아닌 “seeing that that they are yellow”. (109)
    • “‘‘Seeing that he moves,’’ or ‘‘seeing that they are yellow’’ are declarations of inference, supported by an initial identification of the subject and some knowledge of how such things in fact behave.” (109)

• 어떤 경우건 영화에서 우리는 움직임을 보는 것이 아니라 그것이 움직이고 있는 것을 본다.
  • Where photography opens up a new dimension is when, instead of objects moving past a fixed camera, the camera moves amongst objects fixed or moving. (110)
  • 단토의 경우 클로즈업을 물체가 다가온다기보다 우리가 다가간다고 느낀다. 여기서의 움직임은 데카르트의 해석으로, 무정위 운동도 kinesis, static 정적도 아니다.

An experience of kinesis need not be a kinetic experience. The experience itself based on rather natural cartesian assumption, is a kinetic – neither kinetic nor static – but beyond motion and stasis, these being only the content of experience, like colors and shapes, and logically external to the having of the experiences as such…[camera is] logically external to the sights recorded by it – detached and spectatorial.

• 여기서 단토는 건축적 공간의 이해에 시네마가 접근한다고 주장한다. 그저 보는 것이 아닌 moved through. 우리는 신 안에 있지만 또한 그 밖에 특정한 (드라마틱한) Location 없이 존재한다. 이러한 시네마의 공간 안에서 subejct change happens when cinema shows the movement of the camera is not our movement, and this has precisely the effect of thrusting us outside the action and back into our metaphysical cartesian hole, (111) which means the consciousness that it is film is what the consciousness is of, and in this move to self-consciousness cinema marches together with the other arts of the twentieth century in the respect that art itself becomes the ultimate subject of art, a movement of thought which parallels philosophy in the respect that phil- osophy in the end is what philosophy is about.
  • 그리고 다시나온 비슷한 두개 (1) a film about the making of a film, transformaing real object into artworks or parts of artworks (2) films whose own making is what they are about, transformation itself is what we are aware of. In the second, the price is that “the film becomes a documentary with the special character of documenting the making of an artwork.” (111)
  • 사르트르의 Sartre의 consciousness처럼 두개의 각각 다른 그러나 Inseparable, dimensions, consciousness of something as its intentional object, and a kind of non-thetic consciousness of the consciousness itself”

Then a film achieves something spectacular, not merely showing what it shows, but showing the fact that it is shown; giving us not merely an object but a perception of that object, a world and a way of seeing that world at once; the artist’s mode of vision being as importantly in his work as what it is a vision of.