Advertisement

Medium Specificity

  • Noël Carroll
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Medium Medium specificity Film Photography Rudolf Arnheim André Bazin Berys Gaut Dominic Lopes Ted Nannicelli Television 

Bibliography

  1. Arnheim, Rudolf. 1933. Film. Trans. L.M. Sievking and I.F.D. Morrow. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  2. ———. 1956. Film. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  3. Balázs, Béla. 2010. Early Film Theory. Trans. Rodney Livingstone. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  4. Bazin, André. 1967. What Is Cinema? Trans. Hugh Gray. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  5. Carroll, Noël. 1988. Philosophical Problems of Classical Film Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. ———. 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.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 1996b. The Specificity of Media in the Arts. In Theorizing the Moving Image, 25–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 1996c. Defining the Moving Image. In Theorizing the Moving Image, 49–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 1996d. Film/Mind Analogies: The Case of Hugo Münsterberg. In Theorizing the Moving Image, 293–304. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 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.Google Scholar
  11. ———. 2003a. Forget the Medium! In Engaging the Moving Image, 1–9. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ———. 2003b. Kracauer’s Theory of Film. In Engaging the Moving Image, 181–202. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. ———. 2008. The Philosophy of Motion Pictures. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
  14. ———. 2014. Béla Balázs: The Face of Cinema. October 148 (May): 53–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ———. 2016. Art Appreciation. Journal of Aesthetic Education 50 (4, Winter): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gaut, Berys. 2010. A Philosophy of Cinematic Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. ———. 2016. Cinematic Art and Technology. In Current Controversies in Philosophy of Film, ed. Katherine Thomson-Jones, 17–35. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Givens, Bill. 1999. Film Flubs: Memorable Movie Mistakes. New York: Citadel Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kracauer, Siegfried. 1960. Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lopes, Dominic. 2003. The Aesthetics of Photographic Transparency. Mind 112 (July): 1–16.Google Scholar
  21. ———. 2009. A Philosophy of Computer Art. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. ———. 2014. Beyond Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Münsterberg, Hugo. 1970. The Film: A Psychological Study. New York: Dover Press.Google Scholar
  24. Nannicelli, Ted. 2017. Appreciating the Art of Television: A Philosophical Perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Pudovkin, V.I. 1958. Film Acting and Film Technique. London: Vision Press.Google Scholar
  26. Sontag, Susan. 1969. Film and Theater. In Styles of Radical Will, 99–122. New York: Farrar, Strauss, and Giroux.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Noël Carroll
    • 1
  1. 1.The Graduate CenterCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations