z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Cinematic
Author(s) -
Aaron Smuts
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
the nordic journal of aesthetics/the nordic journal of aesthetics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.145
H-Index - 4
eISSN - 2000-9607
pISSN - 2000-1452
DOI - 10.7146/nja.v23i46.16383
Subject(s) - praise , virtue , expansive , term (time) , aesthetics , art , epistemology , philosophy , literature , physics , compressive strength , quantum mechanics , thermodynamics
Is cinematicity a virtue in film? Is lack of cinematicity a defect? Berys Gaut thinks so. He claims that cinematicity is a pro tanto virtue in film. I disagree. I argue that the term “cinematic” principally refers to some cluster of characteristics found in films featuring the following: expansive scenery, extreme depth of field, high camera positioning, and elaborate tracking shots. We often use the word as a term of praise. And we are likely right to do so. We are right if we mean that the film does well what movies often do well. We are wrong if we mean that the film is good for doing what is merely distinctive of film. This issue has important implications for understanding the role of the medium in artistic evaluation. I argue that we should reject Gaut’s claim because it entails an implausibly strong medium specificity thesis.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here