It's from an article entitled "The Scene of the Screen: Envisioning Cinematic and Electronic Presence" by Vivan Sobchack, and it is sadly quite representative of the bulk of writing in the film theory/criticism field. These people should be forced to take journalism classes; it hurts my head to traverse 20 pages of verbose wasteland.This power to alter our perceptions is doubly true of technologies of representation. A technological artifact like the automobile (whose technological function is not representation but transportation) has profouindly changed the temporal and spatial shape and meaining of our life-world and our own bodily and symbolic sense of ourselves.
However, representational technologies of photography, the motion picture, video, and computer inform us twice over: first, like the automobile, through the specific material conditions by which they latently engage our senses at the bodily level of what might be called our microperception, and then again through their explicit representational function by which they engage our senses textually at the hermeneutic level of what might be called our macroperception.
Most theorists and critics of the cinematic and electronic have been drawn to macroperceptual analysis, to descriptions and interpretations of the hermeneutic-cultural contexts that inform and shape both the materiality of the technologies and their textual representation. Nonetheless, “all such contexts find their fulfillment only within the range of microperceptual possibility.” We cannot reflect upon and analyze either technologies or texts without having, at some point, engaged them immediately — that is, through our own perceptive sensorium, through the materiality (or immanent mediation) of our own bodies.
Thus, as philosopher of technology Don Ihde puts it, while “there is no microperception (sensory-bodily) without its location within a field of macroperception,” there can be “no macroperception without its microperceptual foci.” it is important to note, however, that since perception is constituted and organized as a bodily and sensory gestalt that is always already meaningful, a microperceptual focus is not the same as a physiological or anatomical focus. The perceiving and sensing body is always also a lived-body — immersed in and making social meaning as well as physical sense.
film studies is killing me
film studies is killing me
I just want to know how many of you can get through this without skimming:
-
Grandpa Stu
- Posts: 2362
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 8:00 am
omg the horror!
holy shit that's horrible. bitch needs to learn to write more economically. it seems to me that she never got out of the high school habbit of using filler words to meet the required paper length. in fact it apears she's gotten worse in that respect haha.
dear god there's just so much wrong with that i cant just leave it at there either! i mean ffs look how long those sentences are--there's no variation in their length whatsoever. the second paragaph is a single sentence for crying out loud! not only does she use rediculously long words, she goes so far as to use them repeatedly which is a big no no with any word in general.
dear god there's just so much wrong with that i cant just leave it at there either! i mean ffs look how long those sentences are--there's no variation in their length whatsoever. the second paragaph is a single sentence for crying out loud! not only does she use rediculously long words, she goes so far as to use them repeatedly which is a big no no with any word in general.
Not only is it all over place and not clear but it also seems that the person used Word’s thesaurus just to make it sound more intelligent.
I like this part the best:
Throw the article into your profs face and tell them to translate it into english.
I like this part the best:
Jesus fucking Christ, not only is it the same fucking shit 4 times I'm also pretty sure that "microperception" isn't a fucking word.“there is no microperception (sensory-bodily) without its location within a field of macroperception,” there can be “no macroperception without its microperceptual foci.”
Throw the article into your profs face and tell them to translate it into english.
To be fair, film theorists coin a lot of words, so I'm sure she knew that "microperception" wasn't in the dictionary. But while a lot of what they say, however understood in the field, simply isn't translatable into normal language, there is a definite level of clarity which they should strive for (but don't).BlueGene wrote:FFS, it's really not a word.
Last edited by sliver on Tue Feb 07, 2006 7:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Massive Quasars
- Posts: 8696
- Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 8:00 am
You can figure out what microperception and macroperception mean from the context. Dave is right. Get used to it. You're going to see a lot more of this shit. People have to write this way to fill up articles and books.
After you read enough of this stuff your brain begins to build a bullshit filtering device, which filters out the underlying idea from the poorly worded and often padded crap.
For example, "We cannot reflect upon and analyze either technologies or texts without having, at some point, engaged them immediately — that is, through our own perceptive sensorium, through the materiality (or immanent mediation) of our own bodies. " This is brimming with verbiage. All this sentence seems to be saying is, "we cannot understand technology until we use it".
After you read enough of this stuff your brain begins to build a bullshit filtering device, which filters out the underlying idea from the poorly worded and often padded crap.
For example, "We cannot reflect upon and analyze either technologies or texts without having, at some point, engaged them immediately — that is, through our own perceptive sensorium, through the materiality (or immanent mediation) of our own bodies. " This is brimming with verbiage. All this sentence seems to be saying is, "we cannot understand technology until we use it".
Big words do not intimidate me. If anything, I relish the opportunity to learn more and bigger words. The problem is one of clarity. These cunts are so self-satisfied, so smug in their strenuous grandiloquence that it just bogs the reader down. This is film theory, not baroque literature: there is no reason to use "Brobdingnagian" if "huge" won't mislead anybody.Dave wrote:Well, you didn't provide the entire article for one thing... How was I being a cunt? I read shit like this every day. You get used to it after awhile. Stop complaining and get out the dictionary if the big words intimidate you.
You're simply agreeing with me (which is fine and healthy and good). I wasn't asking for a translation -- I was comfortable, before posting this, with macro/microperception -- I was merely complaining about the cloying wordiness of film theorists.mjrpes wrote:You can figure out what microperception and macroperception mean from the context. Dave is right. Get used to it. You're going to see a lot more of this shit. People have to write this way to fill up articles and books.
After you read enough of this stuff your brain begins to build a bullshit filtering device, which filters out the underlying idea from the poorly worded and often padded crap.
For example, "We cannot reflect upon and analyze either technologies or texts without having, at some point, engaged them immediately — that is, through our own perceptive sensorium, through the materiality (or immanent mediation) of our own bodies. " This is brimming with verbiage. All this sentence seems to be saying is, "we cannot understand technology until we use it".
Last edited by sliver on Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm just guessing here because I'm not a film person and I don't read this genre often, if ever, but I assume it means this:
You're born and learn to read. You read about a rollercoaster, something which you've never seen or heard of before. It doesn't mean much to you, but you go to check it out anyway. You experience and enjoy it. A month later you read something about another rollercoaster that sounds exciting. You draw on your past sensory experience of actually having rode a rollercoaster and use that as a frame of reference while reading the description about hte new one.
You're born and learn to read. You read about a rollercoaster, something which you've never seen or heard of before. It doesn't mean much to you, but you go to check it out anyway. You experience and enjoy it. A month later you read something about another rollercoaster that sounds exciting. You draw on your past sensory experience of actually having rode a rollercoaster and use that as a frame of reference while reading the description about hte new one.
Last edited by Dave on Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
Dave: That's half of it, but again, I wasn't bugging people for an explanation I was just venting pre-midterm frustration.
It's entirely possible to understand what Vivian and Co. are saying most of the time, it's just not as easy as it ought to be.
It's entirely possible to understand what Vivian and Co. are saying most of the time, it's just not as easy as it ought to be.
Last edited by sliver on Tue Feb 07, 2006 8:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
All I'm trying to do is show how I can take something completely foreign to me and make some sense out of it despite the fact that it was written by an imbecile. It's just something you learn to do. Finish a degree in an area then take an entry level class in the same area. You'll be amazed at how watered down and boring it will be.
I'm taking American History II now, which is a very low level course, and although I've never actually taken it--nothing is particularly old to me yet--I can't stand to go because it seems like its too easy.
On the other hand, I go to my entry level German class and almost get my ass kicked.
I'm taking American History II now, which is a very low level course, and although I've never actually taken it--nothing is particularly old to me yet--I can't stand to go because it seems like its too easy.
On the other hand, I go to my entry level German class and almost get my ass kicked.