Beyond Meaning

I had purchased a used copy of David Bordwell's Ozu and the Poetics of Cinema a while ago and it sat on my bookshelf unread as I waited for an opportunity to actually see a few Ozu films. One could not ask for much more than the 25-film Ozu Yasujiro retrospective currently in progress at the Film Center, so I cracked open the Bordwell book -- and it is a revelation. Beyond offering vivid, eye-opening analyses of Ozu's formal strategies, Bordwell provides some cogent arguments against prevailing modes of art criticism. If I had to boil his argument down to a single sentence, it would be: Art criticism should be less concerned with what a work means, and more about what it does.

Bordwell defends his historical poetics model by arguing that a film should not be treated as a "text" to be "read," but as

an artifact to be used by the spectator to produce certain effects, of which 'meaning' in its most elevated sense (themes, implicit messages) is only one. The work prompts a range of perceptual, emotional, and cognitive effects -- guidance of attention, establishment of expectations, thwarting of hypotheses, retroactive reconsideration of information -- which are essential to the work's uniqueness.

Bordwell's approach contrasts with critical models based in semiotic or thematic analysis, hermeneutical models which attempt to reveal a work's message or meaning. Such models, he astutely observes, take an "atomistic and vague approach to style" and thereby "refuse the art work its full range of stylistic novelty and power." In other words, in the endless process of interpretation and exegesis, the experience(s) of encountering and engaging with the art work is overlooked.

Of course the preoccupation with meaning is not confined to film or art criticism. It's symptomatic of antiquated religionist ideologies, of a world in which texts written centuries ago are still valued despite their irrelevance to contemporary understandings of the world and its various phenomena. Many keep trying to find ways of reconstructing and refurbishing the House of Meaning instead of razing it and enjoying the unobstructed view.

"I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say, 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose,' but I'm anticipating a good lunch."
-- James D. Watson

"People say that what we are all seeking is a meaning for life. I don't think that's what we're really seeking. I think that what we're seeking is an experience of being alive...."
-- Joseph Campbell

For Susan Sontag (1933-2004).

"The aim of all commentary on art now should be to make works of art - and, by analogy, our own experience - more, rather than less, real to us. The function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means."
-- Susan Sontag, "Against Interpretation" (1964)

On Time & In Time (in Jive & in Fudd)

This is really ridiculous but pretty funny.
Below are two results of translating part of my previous post through The Dialectizer:

(1) English-to-Jive:

Jedidiah Woodcock writin' on "Th' Tyranny of th' Clock" provides an impo'tant note on th' political economah of mechanical time:

Modern, Western man [] lives in a wo'ld which runs acco'din' t'th' mechanical an' mathematical symbols of clock time. Th' clock dickates his movements an' inhibits his ackshuns. Th' clock turns time fum a process of nature into a commodity thet kin be measured an' bought an' sold like soap o' sultanas. An' on account o', wifout some means of exack time keepin', indestrial capitalism c'd nevah haf developed an' c'd not corntinue t'sploit th' wawkers, th' clock represents an element of mechanical tyranny in th' lives of modern min mo'e potent than enny indivijool sploiter o' enny other machine.
***
Th' problem of th' clock is, in juneral, similar t'thet of th' machine. Mechanical time is valuable as a means of co-o'dinashun of ackivities in a highly developed society, jest as th' machine is valuable as a means of reducin' unnecessary labour t'th' minimum, dawgone it. Both is valuable fo' th' contribushun they make t'th' smooth runnin' of society, an' sh'd be used insofar as they assist min to co-operate efficiently an' t'eliminate monotonous toil an' social cornfushun. But neifer sh'd be allered t'dominate mens lives as they does today.

Now th' movement of th' clock sets th' tempo men's lives - they become th' servant of th' concepp of time which they themselves haf made, an' is held in fear, like Ole Man Frankenstein by his own monster. In a sane an' free society sech an arbitrary dominashun of man's funckshuns by eifer clock o' machine'd obviously be outta th' quesshun. Th' dominashun of man by th' creashun of man is even mo'e ridiculous than th' dominashun of man by man, as enny fool kin plainly see. Mechanical time'd be relegated t'its true funckshun of a means of reference an' co-o'dinashun, an' min w'd return agin t'a balance view of life no longer dominated by th' wo'ship of th' clock. Shet mah mouth! Complete liberty implies freedom fum th' tyranny of abstrackshuns as fine as fum th' rule of men, as enny fool kin plainly see.

(2) English-to-Elmer Fudd:

Geowge Woodcock wwiting on "De Tywanny of the Cwock" pwovides an impowtant note on the powiticaw economy of mechanicaw time:

Modewn, Westewn man [] wives in a wowwd which wuns accowding to the mechanicaw and mathematicaw symbows of cwock time. De cwock dictates his movements and inhibits his actions. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! De cwock tuwns time fwom a pwocess of natuwe into a commodity that can be measuwed and bought and sowd wike soap ow suwtanas. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! And because, without some means of exact time keeping, industwiaw capitawism couwd nevew have devewoped and couwd not continue to expwoit the wowkews, the cwock wepwesents an ewement of mechanicaw tywanny in the wives of modewn men mowe potent than any individuaw expwoitew ow any othew machine.
***
De pwobwem of the cwock is, in genewaw, simiwaw to that of the machine. Mechanicaw time is vawuabwe as a means of co-owdination of activities in a highwy devewoped society, just as the machine is vawuabwe as a means of weducing unnecessawy wabouw to the minimum. Bof awe vawuabwe fow the contwibution they make to the smoof wunning of society, and shouwd be used insofaw as they assist men to co-opewate efficientwy and to ewiminate monotonous toiw and sociaw confusion, uh-hah-hah-hah. But neithew shouwd be awwowed to dominate mens wives as they do today.

Now the movement of the cwock sets the tempo men's wives - they become the sewvant of the concept of time which they themsewves have made, and awe hewd in feaw, wike Fwankenstein by his own monstew. In a sane and fwee society such an awbitwawy domination of man's functions by eithew cwock ow machine wouwd obviouswy be out of the qwestion, uh-hah-hah-hah. De domination of man by the cweation of man is even mowe widicuwous than the domination of man by man, uh-hah-hah-hah. Mechanicaw time wouwd be wewegated to its twue function of a means of wefewence and co-owdination, and men wouwd wetuwn again to a bawance view of wife no wongew dominated by the wowship of the cwock. Compwete wibewty impwies fweedom fwom the tywanny of abstwactions as weww as fwom the wuwe of men, uh-hah-hah-hah.

I like how "life" becomes "wife" :)
ow wather, I wike how "wife" becomes "wife"
Oh, dat scwewy anawchist!