Abstract
This chapter critically explores the notion of medium specificity both in its classical form, as represented by figures such as Rudolf Arnheim and André Bazin, and in its current revised versions as proposed by philosophers such as Berys Gaut, Dominic Lopes, and Ted Nannicelli. The thesis of this entry is that the idea of medium specificity is flawed in all of its variations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Although this strategy for defending the credentials of silent film was pursued by many of its defenders, one notable exception was the Soviet theorist, Sergei Eisenstein (see Carroll 2002).
- 2.
Indeed, although medium specificity arguments traditionally promised to distinguish cinema from every other medium, typically, the contrast that was emphasized most was with theater, perhaps for the reason that it was the closest neighbor to film (and not to mention, its nearest competitor for audiences).
- 3.
The traditional notion of medium specificity was impressively robust in its claims of generality. The qualifications of certain versions of the praxeological approach, notably Gaut’s, reduce the view to scarcely more than banal, common sense.
- 4.
I am not an advocate of the traditional version of the idea of medium specificity, nor am I in favor of making a great deal of the notion of the medium for purposes of evaluation or even individuation. Nevertheless, I do think that if one wants to advance a defense of medium specificity, one needs to employ the notions of medium specificity and the medium as they are traditionally used in order to avoid changing the subject.
- 5.
That is, although Nannicelli acknowledges Lopes’ influence, it is Gaut’s example that primarily guides his approach.
- 6.
Moreover, if we accept Lopes’ revision of the notion of Conceptual Art, that will result in having too few media, in terms of how we currently individuate media, since ready-mades and performance art are not typically regarded as belonging to the same medium. Likewise, avant-garde video and avant-garde film will arguable be regarded as the same medium, although that is not how we currently categorize them.
- 7.
One area in which medium specificity argumentation may still be marshaled for the purpose of artistic enfranchisement is in the defense of the artistic status of computer art (see Lopes 2009).
- 8.
This is not to claim that this is the only concern that the critic needs to address when evaluating a movie. One may also need to ask questions about the value of the purpose, including the question of whether the purpose was worth the effort (see Carroll 2016).
- 9.
By “constitutive purposes,” I mean the purposes that make the motion picture artwork, the artwork it is.
Bibliography
Arnheim, Rudolf. 1933. Film. Trans. L.M. Sievking and I.F.D. Morrow. London: Faber and Faber.
———. 1956. Film. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Balázs, Béla. 2010. Early Film Theory. Trans. Rodney Livingstone. New York: Berghahn Books.
Bazin, André. 1967. What Is Cinema? Trans. Hugh Gray. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Carroll, Noël. 1988. Philosophical Problems of Classical Film Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
———. 1996a. Medium Specificity Arguments and the Self-Consciously Invented Arts: Film, Video and Photography. In Theorizing the Moving Image, 3–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1996b. The Specificity of Media in the Arts. In Theorizing the Moving Image, 25–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1996c. Defining the Moving Image. In Theorizing the Moving Image, 49–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1996d. Film/Mind Analogies: The Case of Hugo Münsterberg. In Theorizing the Moving Image, 293–304. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2002. Eisenstein’s Philosophy of Film. In Camera Lucida/Camera Obscura: Essays in Honor of Annette Michelson, ed. Richard Allen and Malcolm Turvey, 127–146. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
———. 2003a. Forget the Medium! In Engaging the Moving Image, 1–9. New Haven: Yale University Press.
———. 2003b. Kracauer’s Theory of Film. In Engaging the Moving Image, 181–202. New Haven: Yale University Press.
———. 2008. The Philosophy of Motion Pictures. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
———. 2014. Béla Balázs: The Face of Cinema. October 148 (May): 53–62.
———. 2016. Art Appreciation. Journal of Aesthetic Education 50 (4, Winter): 1–14.
Gaut, Berys. 2010. A Philosophy of Cinematic Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2016. Cinematic Art and Technology. In Current Controversies in Philosophy of Film, ed. Katherine Thomson-Jones, 17–35. London: Routledge.
Givens, Bill. 1999. Film Flubs: Memorable Movie Mistakes. New York: Citadel Press.
Kracauer, Siegfried. 1960. Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lopes, Dominic. 2003. The Aesthetics of Photographic Transparency. Mind 112 (July): 1–16.
———. 2009. A Philosophy of Computer Art. London/New York: Routledge.
———. 2014. Beyond Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Münsterberg, Hugo. 1970. The Film: A Psychological Study. New York: Dover Press.
Nannicelli, Ted. 2017. Appreciating the Art of Television: A Philosophical Perspective. London: Routledge.
Pudovkin, V.I. 1958. Film Acting and Film Technique. London: Vision Press.
Sontag, Susan. 1969. Film and Theater. In Styles of Radical Will, 99–122. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Carroll, N. (2019). Medium Specificity. In: Carroll, N., Di Summa, L.T., Loht, S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of the Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19601-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-19601-1_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-19600-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-19601-1
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)