Que reste-t-il du cinéma?

This text proposes an evaluation of what remains of cinema in the age of the digital, and of an ever increased circulation between movie theatres and museums. Much has changed in the social and aesthetic status of cinema, at least since the appearance of video art; but cinema, in general, has not di...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Jacques Aumont
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Rosenberg & Sellier 2011-03-01
Series:Rivista di Estetica
Online Access:http://journals.openedition.org/estetica/1634
id doaj-2d90dbc8a16843cf88ffac721bbcdc60
record_format Article
spelling doaj-2d90dbc8a16843cf88ffac721bbcdc602020-11-24T21:58:17ZengRosenberg & SellierRivista di Estetica0035-62122421-58642011-03-0146173110.4000/estetica.1634Que reste-t-il du cinéma?Jacques AumontThis text proposes an evaluation of what remains of cinema in the age of the digital, and of an ever increased circulation between movie theatres and museums. Much has changed in the social and aesthetic status of cinema, at least since the appearance of video art; but cinema, in general, has not disappeared, quite to the contrary, and remains a very important social practice. Two important factors, however, have undergone deep changes: 1°, film no longer has the exclusivity of the moving image, which it has to share with television and contemporary art; 2°, the recent hegemony of the digital image has driven film toward a massive return to the “Méliès path” of film art, that of a direct intervention on the film image. The contention here is that, though the art of film is obviously not what it was, it has kept a number of qualities which still make it the positive reference for any thinking of the moving image in general. The article puts forward three kinds of reasons to support this argument: 1°, cinema has invented a specific way to see moving images, resting on what is termed here the production of a gaze; 2°, time is essential to the film form itself; 3°, film is the only art which has developed an aesthetic of the encounter (with the real) – and the co-presence of these three ranges of value remain absolutely specific.http://journals.openedition.org/estetica/1634
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Jacques Aumont
spellingShingle Jacques Aumont
Que reste-t-il du cinéma?
Rivista di Estetica
author_facet Jacques Aumont
author_sort Jacques Aumont
title Que reste-t-il du cinéma?
title_short Que reste-t-il du cinéma?
title_full Que reste-t-il du cinéma?
title_fullStr Que reste-t-il du cinéma?
title_full_unstemmed Que reste-t-il du cinéma?
title_sort que reste-t-il du cinéma?
publisher Rosenberg & Sellier
series Rivista di Estetica
issn 0035-6212
2421-5864
publishDate 2011-03-01
description This text proposes an evaluation of what remains of cinema in the age of the digital, and of an ever increased circulation between movie theatres and museums. Much has changed in the social and aesthetic status of cinema, at least since the appearance of video art; but cinema, in general, has not disappeared, quite to the contrary, and remains a very important social practice. Two important factors, however, have undergone deep changes: 1°, film no longer has the exclusivity of the moving image, which it has to share with television and contemporary art; 2°, the recent hegemony of the digital image has driven film toward a massive return to the “Méliès path” of film art, that of a direct intervention on the film image. The contention here is that, though the art of film is obviously not what it was, it has kept a number of qualities which still make it the positive reference for any thinking of the moving image in general. The article puts forward three kinds of reasons to support this argument: 1°, cinema has invented a specific way to see moving images, resting on what is termed here the production of a gaze; 2°, time is essential to the film form itself; 3°, film is the only art which has developed an aesthetic of the encounter (with the real) – and the co-presence of these three ranges of value remain absolutely specific.
url http://journals.openedition.org/estetica/1634
work_keys_str_mv AT jacquesaumont querestetilducinema
_version_ 1725852647914733568