虚构/非虚构的区别:对话中的纪实研究与分析美学

IF 0.5 0 FILM, RADIO, TELEVISION Studies in Documentary Film Pub Date : 2021-05-04 DOI:10.1080/17503280.2021.1923141
Mario Slugan, E. Terrone
{"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}
引用次数: 1

摘要

纪录片理论常常在开篇专门讨论小说和纪录片之间的区别。在早期更激进的例子中,纪录片理论家声称,话语本身,即电影比喻的使用,在所有电影中引入了虚构元素,包括纪录片(Renov 1993)。后来的叙述更为温和,认为构成小说的不是一般的话语性,而是特定的文本特征,如捏造程度(Nichols 2017)。但事实仍然是,目前纪录片研究的共识是,纪录片/小说的区别是一个程度问题,而不是一个固定的边界问题。分析美学在讨论小说与非小说的区别方面也有着丰富的传统。相比之下,早期的经典作品(Currie 1990;Walton 1990)已经建立了一个牢固的界限,小说本质上涉及想象,而非小说本质上则涉及相信。然而,最近的作者,如Stacie Friend(2012)和Derek Matravers(2014),已经将这种严格的分歧置于压力之下,边界似乎比30年前更加不稳定。因此,目前,纪录片研究和分析美学对小说/非小说区别的看法似乎比以往任何时候都更接近,但两者之间几乎没有对话。这期特刊旨在加强学科的共同点,以此作为朝着这个方向迈出的一步。在分析美学的情况下,争论主要集中在文学文本中的小说/非小说的区别上。鉴于对纪录片的最新描述是在大约20年前发展起来的(Carroll 1997;Currie 1999;Plantinga 2005),这是分析美学将纪录片视为非虚构作品的典范,并参与纪录片研究的最新学术研究的一个重要机会。反过来,纪录片研究也受益于分析美学的研究结果,尤其是关于某件事是真是假独立于某件事是否虚构的说法。这期特刊源于2019年11月15日至16日在伦敦玛丽女王大学举行的第二届分析美学和电影对话研究会议,题为“纪录片与小说/非小说鸿沟”,由英国美学学会主办。本期汇集了3位纪录片学者和3位分析美学家进行对话。Mario Slugan以
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Studies in Documentary Film
Studies in Documentary Film FILM, RADIO, TELEVISION-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
26
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.
期刊最新文献
‘And then … ’: new media’s conspiracy theories and counternarratives in Loose Change and The Power of Nightmares South Korean Documentary Cinema and remembrance: the past in the present, at Jeonju Film Festival 2024 The image of the absent narrators: personal migrant memories in Žilnik’s docu-experiments Exploring the empathic potential of 360-degree documentary The cinema of Rithy Panh: everything has a soul
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1