{"title":"虚构/非虚构的区别:对话中的纪实研究与分析美学","authors":"Mario Slugan, E. Terrone","doi":"10.1080/17503280.2021.1923141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Theories of documentary film oftentimes devote their opening pages to the distinction between fiction and documentary. In its earlier more radical instances, documentary theorists have claimed that discursivity itself i.e. the use of film tropes, introduces fictive elements into all films, documentaries included (Renov 1993). Later accounts have been more moderate in arguing that it is not discursivity in general but specific textual features such as the degree of fabrication that constitute fiction (Nichols 2017). But the fact remains that the current consensus in documentary studies is that the documentary/fiction distinction is a matter of degree rather than that of a firm boundary. Analytic aesthetics has also had a fruitful tradition of discussing the fiction/nonfiction distinction. Here, by contrast, earlier classic works (Currie 1990; Walton 1990) have established a firm boundary where fiction essentially involves imagining whereas nonfiction essentially involves believing. More recent authors like Stacie Friend (2012) and Derek Matravers (2014), however, have put this strict divide under pressure and the border appears more fluid than it was 30 years ago. Presently, then, documentary studies and analytic aesthetics appear to be closer than ever in their views on the fiction/nonfiction distinction, yet little dialogue exists between the two. This special issue aims to bolster the disciplines’ common ground as a step in that direction. In the case of analytic aesthetics, the debate has mostly focused on the fiction/nonfiction distinction in literary texts. Given that the latest accounts of documentaries have been developed some twenty years ago (Carroll 1997; Currie 1999; Plantinga 2005) this is a significant opportunity for analytic aesthetics to address documentaries as a paradigmatic case of nonfiction, and to engage with the latest scholarship in documentary studies. Reciprocally, documentary studies gain to benefit from engaging findings in analytic aesthetics, especially the claim that whether something is true or not is independent from whether something is fiction or not. This special issue has grown from the second Analytic Aesthetics and Film Studies in Conversation conference titled ‘Documentaries and the Fiction/Nonfiction Divide’ held at Queen Mary University of London, 15–16 November 2019 and sponsored by the British Society for Aesthetics. The issue brings together 3 documentary film scholars and 3 analytic aestheticians in conversation. Mario Slugan opens the issue with an","PeriodicalId":43545,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Documentary Film","volume":"15 1","pages":"107 - 113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17503280.2021.1923141","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Fiction/Nonfiction Distinction: Documentary Studies and Analytic Aesthetics in Conversation\",\"authors\":\"Mario Slugan, E. Terrone\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17503280.2021.1923141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Theories of documentary film oftentimes devote their opening pages to the distinction between fiction and documentary. In its earlier more radical instances, documentary theorists have claimed that discursivity itself i.e. the use of film tropes, introduces fictive elements into all films, documentaries included (Renov 1993). Later accounts have been more moderate in arguing that it is not discursivity in general but specific textual features such as the degree of fabrication that constitute fiction (Nichols 2017). But the fact remains that the current consensus in documentary studies is that the documentary/fiction distinction is a matter of degree rather than that of a firm boundary. Analytic aesthetics has also had a fruitful tradition of discussing the fiction/nonfiction distinction. Here, by contrast, earlier classic works (Currie 1990; Walton 1990) have established a firm boundary where fiction essentially involves imagining whereas nonfiction essentially involves believing. More recent authors like Stacie Friend (2012) and Derek Matravers (2014), however, have put this strict divide under pressure and the border appears more fluid than it was 30 years ago. Presently, then, documentary studies and analytic aesthetics appear to be closer than ever in their views on the fiction/nonfiction distinction, yet little dialogue exists between the two. This special issue aims to bolster the disciplines’ common ground as a step in that direction. In the case of analytic aesthetics, the debate has mostly focused on the fiction/nonfiction distinction in literary texts. Given that the latest accounts of documentaries have been developed some twenty years ago (Carroll 1997; Currie 1999; Plantinga 2005) this is a significant opportunity for analytic aesthetics to address documentaries as a paradigmatic case of nonfiction, and to engage with the latest scholarship in documentary studies. Reciprocally, documentary studies gain to benefit from engaging findings in analytic aesthetics, especially the claim that whether something is true or not is independent from whether something is fiction or not. This special issue has grown from the second Analytic Aesthetics and Film Studies in Conversation conference titled ‘Documentaries and the Fiction/Nonfiction Divide’ held at Queen Mary University of London, 15–16 November 2019 and sponsored by the British Society for Aesthetics. The issue brings together 3 documentary film scholars and 3 analytic aestheticians in conversation. Mario Slugan opens the issue with an\",\"PeriodicalId\":43545,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Studies in Documentary Film\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"107 - 113\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17503280.2021.1923141\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Studies in Documentary Film\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17503280.2021.1923141\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"FILM, RADIO, TELEVISION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Documentary Film","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17503280.2021.1923141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"FILM, RADIO, TELEVISION","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Fiction/Nonfiction Distinction: Documentary Studies and Analytic Aesthetics in Conversation
Theories of documentary film oftentimes devote their opening pages to the distinction between fiction and documentary. In its earlier more radical instances, documentary theorists have claimed that discursivity itself i.e. the use of film tropes, introduces fictive elements into all films, documentaries included (Renov 1993). Later accounts have been more moderate in arguing that it is not discursivity in general but specific textual features such as the degree of fabrication that constitute fiction (Nichols 2017). But the fact remains that the current consensus in documentary studies is that the documentary/fiction distinction is a matter of degree rather than that of a firm boundary. Analytic aesthetics has also had a fruitful tradition of discussing the fiction/nonfiction distinction. Here, by contrast, earlier classic works (Currie 1990; Walton 1990) have established a firm boundary where fiction essentially involves imagining whereas nonfiction essentially involves believing. More recent authors like Stacie Friend (2012) and Derek Matravers (2014), however, have put this strict divide under pressure and the border appears more fluid than it was 30 years ago. Presently, then, documentary studies and analytic aesthetics appear to be closer than ever in their views on the fiction/nonfiction distinction, yet little dialogue exists between the two. This special issue aims to bolster the disciplines’ common ground as a step in that direction. In the case of analytic aesthetics, the debate has mostly focused on the fiction/nonfiction distinction in literary texts. Given that the latest accounts of documentaries have been developed some twenty years ago (Carroll 1997; Currie 1999; Plantinga 2005) this is a significant opportunity for analytic aesthetics to address documentaries as a paradigmatic case of nonfiction, and to engage with the latest scholarship in documentary studies. Reciprocally, documentary studies gain to benefit from engaging findings in analytic aesthetics, especially the claim that whether something is true or not is independent from whether something is fiction or not. This special issue has grown from the second Analytic Aesthetics and Film Studies in Conversation conference titled ‘Documentaries and the Fiction/Nonfiction Divide’ held at Queen Mary University of London, 15–16 November 2019 and sponsored by the British Society for Aesthetics. The issue brings together 3 documentary film scholars and 3 analytic aestheticians in conversation. Mario Slugan opens the issue with an
期刊介绍:
Studies in Documentary Film is the first refereed scholarly journal devoted to the history, theory, criticism and practice of documentary film. In recent years we have witnessed an increased visibility for documentary film through conferences, the success of general theatrical releases and the re-emergence of scholarship in documentary film studies. Studies in Documentary Film is a peer-reviewed journal.