Add to favorites About the project
Student's Electronic Library
Advanced Search
Add to the collection
Rubricator
Recent receipts
Dictionaries
Services
Go to the home page Advanced Search Publish
Ads
Looking for an abstract
Work
Tutors
Info for students
Add
Training materials
Research papers
Graduation papers
Practice reports
Answers to questions
Term papers (Review)
Course projects
Practical tasks
Essay
Defensive speech
Reports
Training manuals
Control works
Training manuals
Lectures
Essays
Other
Literature
Article
Other
Not defined
Topic: Cinema as a cultural phenomenon of the 20th century
Type of work: Abstract
Subject: Cultural studies All essays on cultural studies Download Read the text online We will help you write an abstract
You can find out the cost of assistance in writing a student paper.
Help in writing a work that will definitely be accepted
REPORT
on the topic: Cinema as a cultural phenomenon of the XX century
Content
Introduction
1.
Cultural heritage of cinema art of the XX century
1.1 The first steps of world cinema
1.2 Cinema in culture as a spectacular art
1.3 The image of nature in the cinema of the XX century as a symbol of the high culture of mankind
1.4 The life of a person in the life of cinema
2.
The cultural heritage of the Russian cinema of the XX century
2.1 The first steps of Russian cinema
2.2 Distinctive features of Russian cinema of the Soviet period
2.3 Russian cinema in the critical stages of national history
3.
The possibilities of cinema as a cultural phenomenon at the turn of the XXI century
Conclusion
Literature
Introduction
To reveal the topic of cinema as a cultural phenomenon of the XX century, we will briefly consider how critics in general define the culture of the XX century and what place cinema occupies in it.
The culture of the XX century is radically new and previously unknown types of artistic and philosophical self expression: technical types of arts, fundamental scientific theories that profoundly transform philosophical methods and artistic thinking.
The XX century distinguishes among other historical epochs such a specific structural phenomenon as mass culture.
Mass culture differs sharply from the previous grassroots forms in that it is based on the achievements of advanced technologies of the XX century.
Moreover, in the field of mass culture (pop music, entertainment films, fashion, the press, etc.), the powerful potentials of sociology, psychology, management, political science, etc. are used.
Revolutionary sciences and technologies are used in art with paradoxical results.
Classical cinema of the early XX century (D. Griffith, Ch. Chaplin) it already makes palpable the internal contradiction that will force the cinema to find all new topics, techniques, solutions.
With a few exceptions, the film masterpieces of the XX century programmatically pursued the goals of" truth and goodness", i.e. they worked for anthropo civilizational super values.
But already in the monumental "Intolerance" of Griffith, the quality of the uncontrollability of cinematic means of expression was manifested, which were later to become an important subject of philosophical arguments of the theorists of new arts and communications - from 3.
Krakauer and V. Benjamin to McLuhan.
The specific role of cinema in the culture of the XX century as a pillar of mass culture, preserving the classical traditions of life likeness (a renaissance perspective plus pseudo objective narrative) and potential accessibility in an era when the attitude towards art for artists, and not for the masses of people, prevailed among the educated segments of the population, was called into question (7).
1. Cultural heritage of cinema art of the XX century
1.1 The first steps of world cinema
The date of December 28, 1895 has entered the history of mankind as the date of the birth of cinema.
The Lumiere brothers and Georges Méliès are rightfully considered the founders of cinema.
There is an opinion that all the further development of cinema was set by the differentiation and interaction of two lines.
Documentaries, the idea of realism inherent in cinema, the effect of authenticity and de dramatization, which hides the direct levers of influence on the viewer's emotions, go back to Louis Lumiere.
Melies is considered the ancestor of the screen as a world of imagination, fantastic creatures and hallucinations, in a word, the cinema in all its splendor.
By the early 1900s, movie theaters had spread all over the world.
However, the attitude to the new mass form of entertainment (there was no question of cinema as an art) was ambiguous.
Self respecting theater actors refused to shoot in the "cinema", writers forbade touching their works, parents did not allow well bred children to go to the "cinema booth", "theaters for beggars".
In 1908, a group of foreign writers and theatrical figures organized the society "Film d'ar", which means "Feature Film".
They set their task to make cinema an authentic art, a conductor of culture, good taste.
Before the First World War, the French were at the forefront of cinematographers.
In Russia, French firms dominated for ten years.
However, since 1907, a number of Russian entrepreneurs have appeared who were not satisfied with the rental of foreign paintings and started their own production.
These are A. O. Drankov, A. A. Khanzhonkov, P. Chardynin.
Everywhere the films were shown with musical accompaniment.
It was provided, as a rule, by the playing of tapers on the piano, which often included venerable musicians.
Both in Russia and abroad, the works of P. I. Tchaikovsky were most often performed.
Symphony orchestras and even choral ensembles were invited to expensive viewing halls.
Thus, the performance of a large orchestra and choir in October 1908 was accompanied by the ceremonial presentation of the first domestic feature film "Ponizovaya Volnitsa" (2, p.77).
In the second half of the 10s, a system of editing and narrative cinema was formed, and then prevailed in the world film production, which was destined to survive the "Great Silent".
It was she who gave a general direction to the further development of cinema, eclipsing for a while other versions of early cinema that were developed outside the framework of game narrative.
These variants were pushed to the periphery of screen art and began to be determined not independently, as before, but only in relation to the leading type of feature films.
Gradually, the "standard of cinema" was formed: a narrative feature film lasting from one and a half to two hours.
Other forms have fully retained their significance only outside the rental system.
In 1916, D. Griffith carried out a giant production of "Intolerance", in which he sought to prove that social, religious and national prejudices are destructive at all times, that the highest manifestation of humanity is in kindness, mutual understanding, tolerance.
The strong, realistic performance of the artists, mass scenes in giant sets, meaningful energetic editing, skillful use of close ups and details all this made "Intolerance" one of the best pictures of world cinema (6, p.31).
In the 20s, the brilliant film actor and director Charles Chaplin worked, who created the American national film comedy, which vividly expressed both the positive and negative sides of American reality.
His works are not only sharp, sharply critical, but also imbued with human faith, bright and humanistic ("Gold Rush", "Parisian", "Baby", "Circus", etc.).
The expressive possibilities of young art turned out to be so rich, diverse and impressive that they were enough to create great works, masterpieces, which even today, despite their dumbness, retain the power of influence.
After the successful holding of the first film screenings, the engineering thought turned to the development of methods for recording and reproducing sound compatible with the display of a moving picture on film.
The gradual introduction of equipment for synchronous recording and reproduction of sound and image put an end to silent cinema, which by that time had received the unofficial title of "Great".
It took seven years: from the first screening of the sound film "The Jazz Singer" in 1927 to the almost universal victory of sound in 1934 (4, p. 171).
After the first sound films were released, as always when something new appeared in social life, science and technology, many people did not understand why they were needed at all.
It was incomprehensible even to well known and established scientists, art critics, actors; Ch.
himself was an active opponent of the advent of sound on the screens.
Chaplin.
Unlike the critics, the audience felt more involved in what was happening on the screen while watching the first sound feature films, so they were more willing to visit cinemas and thus voted for the advent of the era of sound cinema in art.
1.2 Cinema in culture as a spectacular art
The line that accentuates the spectacular beginning in the cinema was born a little later, because it required significantly higher costs.
It is possible to distinguish such a specific and genre direction as an action movie.
The first action films in the cinema were Italian peplums - historical and mythological staged films, usually based on the material of the ancient world: the East, Greece, Rome.
These films, of course, had their own plots, often expanded and based on well known literary sources.
But the main thing for the audience was the reconstruction of large scale events, primarily of a catastrophically spectacular nature: "The Last Days of Pompeii "(1908), the eruption of Mount Etna in the famous film "Cabiria" (1914), the reproduction of well known biblical and gospel stories, etc. yelza does not agree with the fact that the entertainment of cinema plays a cultural and educational role for society.
With the arrival of synchronous sound in the cinema, the old and new forms of cinema entertainment have become stronger.
Science fiction and horror films, continuing the "Melies line" and following the precepts of German cinema expressionism, took a leading place in the repertoire of cinemas.
But the greatest fame fell to the share of American musicals.
When at the turn of the 20s and 30s these excellently staged performances began to be transferred to the screen, new problems arose.
On the one hand, the capabilities of the movie camera removed all restrictions on the angles of showing numbers.
On the other hand, the specifics of cinema required a story about something, at least as a pretext.
This replenished the system of movie stars with new theatrical performers.
Thus, cinema contributed to the interweaving and popularization of various types of arts.
Cinema has more or less assimilated the genre forms of other types of art, primarily theater, as well as literature and painting, translating them into the "language of the screen".
Paraphrasing the well known definition of Bakhtin, we can say that here the genre acted as a representative of creative memory in the process of artistic development (4, p.175).
In the 50s, due to the spread of television, the big screen was faced with the task of survival in competition with a new kind of creativity.
The American film industry, being the first to be hit, immediately offered as an antidote a staged spectacular luxury that is inaccessible to home receivers.
This reinforced the spread of color images that began in the 30s.
In 1940, Eisenstein formulated the need for the meaning forming use of color in the general system of the film on an equal footing with drama and music, which was confirmed by the color episode of the second series of Ivan the Terrible, where several colors are poured into a rhythmically symbolically emotional element without any connection with the real household scale.
In general, after color became technologically universal by the mid 30s and, in principle, easily accessible everywhere, the problem of color in cinema turned out to be actually a problem of style, relevant at the level of film for modern criticism and at the level of general stylistic cultural signs for historians (4, p. 184).
The entertainment of cinema, of course, also has an entertainment function.
A fundamentally new level of entertainment has been achieved over the past twenty years thanks to the improvement of sound recording and sound reproduction systems and the appearance of electronic special effects and combined filming.
Monstrous transformations in horror films, space travel and the dizzying adventures of Indiana Jones, revived fantastic and prehistoric creatures literally filled the screens of the world.
Since the late 70s, children's and adolescent cinema, which has proved its economic super profitability, has built its power over the audience not on dramatic sophistication,but on the escalation of entertainment.
Robocop and the Terminator, Rambo, Rocky and the street fighter, Jean Claude Van Damme, Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger brought together different myths of the cinema and thereby consolidated their success.
And yet, in the modern survival of theatrical cinema, in the return of viewers to cinemas, the revival of entertainment in connection with a qualitative leap in the technical re equipment of halls plays, if not the main, then in all cases an important role.
As the narrative gradually moves to television (as evidenced by the distribution of TV series and TV movies that are not intended for public display), and interactivity conquers computer networks, entertainment retains and strengthens its position on big screens, convincing of the reality of the second century of cinema (4, p. 13).
1.3 The image of nature in the cinema of the XX century as a symbol of the high culture of mankind
Unlike other arts, cinema uses means that are much more consistent with the subject of the image: the natural is part of the visual and expressive means.
For example, Thomas Mann saw the difference between cinema and theaters in that there is nature itself instead of scenery; "this is life and reality, and it acts through its moving silence..."
Yes, cinema "describes" life with the help of movement, but in its simplest form - in the form of mechanical movement.
What feelings do we have, for example, when we see an old man on the screen who suddenly lost his orientation in the human bustle due to age and froze for a moment in complete confusion?
Whose soul is not touched by the natural spontaneity of childhood, reminiscent of the morning of life?
These episodes express the vulnerability of man and nature to the aggression of a social monster and at the same time - the indestructibility of the nature of life.
Children in the cinema, according to Bela Balash, "carry the same charm of overheard nature as animals.
They donot play, they live."
Maybe that's why the appearance of a child in the picture is equivalent to the appearance of non playing nature.
Child becomes as natural events of social life, as it happens, for example, in the film by American Director Stanley Kramer with a very expressive name of "Bless the beasts and children" (1971).
The film tells the story of how defenseless animals, doomed to destruction, save such as vulnerable children, wittingly and unwittingly rejected hardened "adult" world.
The unclouded natural child's view of the world washes away the layers of social scab from it, reveals and, in the end, disarms the inevitable cruelty of human social existence.
Such a naturally enlightened point of view on life is recreated by the French director Albert Lamoriss, whose films have had a serious impact on the image of children in world cinema.
In the famous "Red Ball" (1956), the director tells about the poetic friendship of a Boy and a Ball, whose movement in the frame awakens the natural movement of life.
In the paintings of Chaplin, Fellini, and other heroes of the screen, nature, the natural are given in man and through man.
The hero, the bearer of the natural, is a measure of the external environment, often hostile to the natural truth hidden in a person.
This is how nature is heroized in man himself, and this hero is often a clown, a buffoon, an eternal pilgrim, rejected by society.
But even nature in its "pure form" cannot perform the background, auxiliary role of an ordinary landscape in cinema art.
Objectively, she is moving to the forefront of the film plot, trying to take the place of a full fledged hero.
So in ancient times the plot of the myth was formed, and later the collective folk art that grew out of it, folklore, where the natural elements in the objective visibility enter into all kinds of relationships with people.
But no matter how dramatically the relationship between the social and the natural has developed in the cinema art of different historical times, the main theme remains the return of the natural, lost by man in political battles, in the Sodom vanity of civilization.
For Dovzhenko, this happens through the collective labor effort of a person.
And in the cinema of Andrei Tarkovsky - in a spiritual and moral reunion with nature as a kind of hypostasis of God.
Separated from nature as a universal whole, Tarkovsky's man is lonely and homeless.
His plot path in almost every film of the director is an ascent to the comprehension of Nature as his spiritual homeland.
Comprehending Nature, Tarkovsky's hero, as it were, erects a temple of his eternal being, regains his home in a direct and, as philosophers say, metaphysical sense (4, p. 402).
1.4 The life of a person in the life of cinema
In order for the image of a dehumanized world to appear on the screen, this film world itself had to go through a significant path of humanization.
By the mid 1920s, the viewer had already managed to discover on the screen not only "nature caught by surprise", but also a person.
His image gained more and more independence, moving into the center of the plot.
Although objectively a person, according to modern theorists, in any case acted and acts as a spiritual center in the cinema, it is both a person in the world and the world in a person.
But this level of understanding of the nature of cinema art is the result of its historical formation.
The drama of loneliness and death became the core of the work of the Swede Ingmar Bergman, on which reflections on all facets of human existence in the harsh and indifferent modern world were strung.
The same problems concerned the Italian Michelangelo Antonioni, he splashed them on the screen, encouraging a person to penetrate into the depths of himself and understand himself.
It's like a "Photo Exaggeration" - this was the name of one of the masterpieces of the Italian artist.
They were compared to the outstanding masters of the Renaissance, whose creative power was manifested in various fields of art.
But the main thing was cinema, which became not only their profession, but also a way of life.
Comprehending reality with the help of the screen, they independently created a new movie - smart, free and difficult.
The movie is not for the needs of the public, hungry for entertainment, but contrary to light tastes - accustomed to the fact that the main thing in the frame is a person with all the intricacies of his fate and inner world, with his feelings and sensuality.
They were not afraid of being unfashionable and not accepted.
They believed in cinema, which, in their opinion, should speak about what excites most of all - about the search for the meaning of life, about the moral quest of a person.
Then critics will call such a movie author's, and it will have many followers and adherents who will need it as air, as a revelation, as a moment of truth.
And they, the discoverers, will receive recognition and the title of classics during their lifetime (1, p. 33).
Separated from the subject material environment, in the flow of screen movement, a person ceases to be just a physical body in the movie image, "a thing among things".
He becomes the center of the spirit, mastering the world that gave birth to him.
And the world, which was previously an element, chaos, is spiritualized, humanized, gaining cosmic meaning in unity with man.
2. The cultural heritage of the Russian cinema of the XX century
2.1 The first steps of Russian cinema
The formation of Russian cinema is associated with such names as S. Eisenstein, V. Pudovkin, Ya.
Protazanov, D. Vertov, L. Kuleshov, etc.
Their work could not but be influenced by the revolutionary events of the beginning of the XX century.
The spirit of that time was inspired by the ideas proclaiming the Soviet revolutionary reality and the heroism of the masses of the people.
In Russia, the sound cinema was first opened in October 1929 on Nevsky Prospekt in Leningrad.
The initial domestic films with sound support were documentaries.
In 1931, the film "A Ticket to Life", not only artistically, but also technically, received worldwide recognition.
At the Venice International Film Festival (1932), the film was awarded as the best director and was purchased for film distribution by 26 countries.
By the decision of UNESCO, "A Ticket to Life" was included in the top ten best films of all times and peoples.
The construction of socialism in our country brought so much new things to human relationships, work, morality, and the life of Soviet people that artists who sought to give truthful images of people and events had to find new forms of development of actions and circumstances.
Soviet cinema of the thirties, which realized itself as the art of socialist realism, boldly and joyfully turned to the theme of socialist labor, to the images of Soviet workers, peasants, and intellectuals.
On December 25, 1934, the first domestic film musical "Funny Guys"was released.
In Europe, it was recognized as the best jazz film production.
Popular songs from the film were recorded and released on gramophone records in countless editions, including in European countries and the United States.
2.2 Distinctive features of Russian cinema of the Soviet period
Our cinema, from its first, pre revolutionary steps, as well as in subsequent Soviet times, developed completely in a non linear, multidirectional way, in a wide range.
Protazanov and Eisenstein, Pudovkin and FEKS, Medvedkin and Kalatozov, Pyriev and Gerasimov, Khutsiev and Chukhray, Shukshin and Tarkovsky, Elem Klimov and Eldar Ryazanov are completely different, far apart artistic worlds, completely different ways of the road.
That's why "shooting in Russian" is primarily shooting in your own way.
That is why we have not been able to establish conveyor lines and bestsellers either in cinema or in culture as a whole.
We are one piece.
But no matter how strikingly the voices of Pyryev differ from Eisenstein, and Tarkovsky from his classmate Shukshin, there is still a certain common denominator that clearly unites them into a single national film school and thereby distinguishes them from other equally pronounced national cinematographies.
The main national feature of our cinema is a very special interest in a person, the desire to get to know him as deeply as possible.
It is not for nothing that the Stanislavsky system and the unparalleled Russian acting school were born in Russia.
Despite all the naivety and underdevelopment of the film language, a higher degree of psychologism distinguished even the earliest pre revolutionary Russian cinema.
Soviet cinema, as far as the natural possibilities of screen art and the strict Soviet government allowed it, inherited this keen interest in a person, in a unique character, in the world of the soul.
And even where there was not enough real scenario material for this or social realistic shores inevitably arose, our cinema easily overcame these barriers in its best works, if only at the expense of grandiose and uncontrolled acting performance.
Such actors as Fyodor Nikitin, Vera Maretskaya, Pyotr Aleynikov, Boris Andreev, Nikolai Kryuchkov, Vasily Merkuryev, and later Nonna Mardyukova, Rolan Bykov, Inna Churikova, Vasily Shukshin, with just one intonation, playing on semitones and barely noticeable strokes, blew up any most unshakable Soviet stamp, molded from cloned socialist realist commissars, party merchants and other representatives of the Soviet nomenclature absolutely alive, bright and inimitable human characters.
This increased "humanistic interest" distinguishes not only the films of Panfilov, early Muratova, Shepitko, Shukshin, that is, films that are obviously serious, problematic, but even that layer of paintings that are at the opposite pole, in the sphere of so called entertainment cinema.
If we compare our comedies, melodramas, adventure films with typologically similar films of foreign origin, it will immediately become noticeable that we have not only sharp intrigue and generally accepted techniques in that field, but, above all, non standard, acutely presented characters and very often a subtle emotional scale that is not in the genre ("Seventeen moments of Spring" by Lioznova," The Feat of the scout "by Barnet, " The Dead Season" by Kulish," The White Sun of the Desert "by Motyl," The Irony of Fate" by Ryazanov, etc.).
The particularly rich, iridescent, emotional range of our films, which now and then easily and naturally flows into songiness, pure music and back, is also our trademark.
A particularly elevated degree of emotional beginning, if there is no direct opportunity to realize it in the plot structure itself, a dramatic conflict, a special type of hero, will still spill out and express itself in something - in the complication of the increased expression of the plastic construction of the film, in a clearly increased measure of musicality and in other indirect forms of expressiveness (the music of Tariverdiev in "Seventeen Moments of Spring", Schwartz in "The White Sun of the Desert", Petrov in "Irony of Fate", etc.).
One of the most distinctive features of Russian culture is its maximum, perhaps even excessive openness and openness to the whole world.
The truly Russian artistic tradition is lively, open, and receptive.
Frequent reference to other people's experience, greedy interaction characterized the history of the development of our cinema.
Numerous borrowings went to us for the future only when they took not just something good that they liked, but something that we had not developed enough.
But not every foreign curiosity suits us.
Russian culture, as long as it remains such, cannot in principle include and absorb much of what is so loudly proclaimed in today's Western culture.
Finally, one of the characteristic features of the Russian artistic tradition is its looseness.
In the history of Russian cinema, this specific feature has been captured especially vividly.
Russian cinema in its development was incredibly hasty and insatiable in relation to everything new.
We did not even have time to master and retain our own finds and priceless discoveries to the slightest extent.
For example, Alexander Medvedkin discovered a completely new continent, a huge, untouched space with deposits of great treasures that would be enough for a long time, for a whole cinema.
But they created one masterpiece film "Happiness", and they hid it in a dark basement and quickly rushed past on some completely different roads.
And if it wasnot for Viktor Demin, who decades later almost accidentally stumbled upon this wonderful film and didnot make a fuss, then who would even know about Medvedkin's discovery today?
And how many such wonderful finds, the most promising discoveries in all spheres of cinema - directing, film plastics, the musical solution of the film, acting - were found, groped by our Russian film school and its pursuit of the firebird of novelty!
(5, p. 219).
2.3 Russian cinema in the critical stages of national history
Cinema, like any other art form, is a reflection of its time.
According to art critic V. Fomin,"there is no other era as pathetic and unproductive as the Perestroika and post perestroika times."
Even the two most terrible and unhappy periods in the biography of our national film music, that is, the first post October period of 1917-1924 and the era of Stalin's little picture of 1947-1953, were, perhaps, more interesting and richer.
Together with the current film time, these are the three deepest failures in the history of Russian cinematography.
They have a lot in common.
Firstly, the organizational and creative model of the previous stage was completely discarded and a fundamentally different one was forcibly imposed by revolutionary methods and shock rates.
Another distinctive feature of these periods was the fact that every time the domestic cinema was certainly strongly pushed by foreign film production.
After all, even during the period of Stalin's "little picture", the highly ideological Soviet cinema was completely lost in the flood of so called "trophy films" (the ratio got close to 1: 6, and then to 1: 10).
It is also noteworthy that in all three cases, "the most important of the arts" was especially zealously tried to turn into a means of pure propaganda.
Hence, with all the difference between the mentioned stages and even the opposite of ideological fillings, in each case the same genre dominates agitfilm.
So, if in the early 20s and in the last years of Stalin's life our cinema was killed by too frenzied propaganda of the doctrine of the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat, then in the same way the wings of perestroika cinema were cut off by no less frenzied anti Soviet propaganda.
But if the first two film adaptations were violent, then the third, it would seem, was natural, necessary, even inevitable.
Many people just dreamed and dreamed about it.
All the more deafening and dramatic were the final results of the fulfilled dreams of freedom.
It was hard to guess it is clear that all the "darkest forces" of society will use its fruits more fully and more efficiently exclusively.
It seems that the main root cause of the pathetic artistic results of the third perestroika and the even more miserable situation of the domestic cinema lies in the fact that we were successfully torn away from the experience of our national culture, from the very foundations of the Russian artistic tradition.
First of all, it was possible to confuse, and then turn upside down the question of the very purpose of art.
In our market time, all the traditional ideas about the special mission of the artist, about the responsibility of the artistic word are ridiculed, thrown into the trash.
Secondly, the ethical code of Russian artistic culture has been thrown out as unnecessary.
Good and evil have swapped places, deliberately mixed to such an extent that you can no longer figure out where and what.
Thirdly, a total break occurred in purely artistic terms.
Modern Russian cinema, with the rarest exceptions, does not speak its native artistic language, purely adopting the flavored language of Hollywood like a monkey (5, p.213).
3. The possibilities of cinema as a cultural phenomenon at the turn of the XXI century
According to A. Tarkovsky, " just as life, constantly flowing and changing, gives everyone the opportunity to interpret and feel every moment in their own way, so a real film, with time accurately recorded on film, spreading beyond the frame, lives in time just as time lives in it."
Acting, pictorial and plastic solutions, words and music - all this was given to the screen as a continuation of the traditions developed in various fields of artistic creativity.
Every new film, moreover, every new shooting day, raises the question of the nature of cinema in a new way and gives a new answer to it (3, p. 231).
Mastering the technical and communicative capabilities of the screen, the artist can take into account not only the immanent properties of the sound visual series, but also the peculiarities of its functioning in society.
Thus, a film shown on television (from the air, cable, communication satellite or videotape) is quite similar to the same film shown in a cinema: there are no more internal differences between them than between a piece of music heard in a concert hall or on the radio.
At the same time, the size of the screen and the mood of the hypothetical viewer caused by the surrounding stop is an essential part of the communicative situation, which means that it leaves its imprint on the perception of the "text" by the audience.
The problem of the constructive use of factors external to a work of art brings us back to technology, already in its relations with artistic creativity.
Electronic music, films created with the help of computers, experimental experiments of virtual reality, beating the speed of projection of silent films, television special effects, etc. - all this is connected with the identification of the artistic potential of modern technology, and at the same time those boundaries in which its application does not lead to a break with art.
In particular, the question remains open, what will be the ratio of artistic and non artistic spheres of multimedia technology development.
Many feature films are equally well watched on TV and on the cinema screen, in widescreen, widescreen or conventional versions.
However, this does not prevent the creation of such films, for which the screen size, image scan, number of audio tracks, etc. are internally significant.
Thus, technology, communication and screen creativity interact at different levels.
First of all, the subordination of technology to the tasks of communication that society sets is revealed.
Further, they reveal the boundaries of art in a number of broader processes of communication between people.
Finally, the article reveals the specifics of artistic creativity associated with the diverse development of the aesthetic potential of communication systems that have a particular technical basis.
The history of screen communication from the invention of cinema to the spread of multimedia technologies is a vivid evidence of the mutual fertilization of technical and artistic creativity (4, p. 607).
Conclusion
During the XX century, cinema turned from a technical novelty and fair entertainment into a part of the daily life of billions of people, into a new art, a large scale spectacle, a cultural phenomenon and, finally, into a museum property.
In recent years, the preservation of films has been discussed on an equal footing with architectural monuments, works of fine art, and even the environment.
There are pros and cons to museumification.
Plus the respect and attention of society as a whole, minus the threat of disappearance from real artistic life.
A museum is created when its exhibits are painlessly removed from all other reality, where they are threatened with death as unnecessary (4, p.3).
Art historians present the cinema of the XX century both as a heritage of history (primarily in reference materials), and as a lively, continuously developing cultural phenomenon.
The heterogeneity and diversity of criticism really reflects the specifics of cinema in the culture of the XX century.
Cinema has diligently promoted humanistic super values (especially ethical ones), however, it is cinema that is endowed with such means that, in their effect on the masses of viewers, approach magic or religious ecstasy.
The effect of the presence, plausibility and omnipotence of the "divine eye", which seems to be able to see everything, look anywhere and even make fabulous and fantastic things real, has been and always should be an ambivalent tool from the very beginning (7).
Literature
1.
Bernasconi E.
They created the cinema of the XX century.
- The magazine "Echo of the planet" No. 31, 2007.
- p. 33-35
2.
Merkulov D. ...and you canot hear what he sings.
When the movie started talking.
Milestones of history.
- Journal "Science and Life" No. 8, 2005.
- pp.
76-79
3.
Mikhalkov Konchalovsky A. S.
The parabola of the idea.
- Moscow: Iskusstvo, 1977.
- 232 p.
4. The first century of cinema.
A popular encyclopedia.
- Moscow: Lokid, 1996.
- 710 p.
5. Fomin V.
It's time to go home.
- Magazine "Moscow" No. 9, 2004.
- p. 211-221
6.
Yurenev R. N.
The Wonderful window: A brief history of world cinema.
- Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1983.
- 287 p.
7. Site Materials www.psylib.
ukrweb.net/books/levit01/txt056.
htm
Similar works Mass cinema as a cultural phenomenon of the 20th century In cultural studies.
On the topic: Mass cinema as a cultural phenomenon of the XX century .
The work was performed by: Kristina Vladimirovna Pivovarova.
Saint Petersburg.
2009.
Content.
Introduction.
A child of the twentieth century .
Cinema is the most popular of the arts ...and Asia, to show how it has influenced the life of humanity and try to find an answer to the question of the reasons for the mass character of "mass cinema" as a phenomenon .
By the end of the 20s of the XX century, all American film production finally moved to Los Angeles.
Cinema as a new element of artistic culture on cultural studies on the topic: "Cinema as a new element of artistic culture" was performed by a student of the group.
And " Pirates of the 20th century ", apparently, had such a huge success because B. Durov managed to put on an "entertaining spectacle".
Cinema - as a synthetic art form For three quarters of a century of its existence, cinema has passed a fabulously fruitful path.
The English film market was already almost completely at the mercy of Hollywood in the 20s.
The most significant phenomenon of English cinema ...
Cinema as an art form, because in technical terms, cinema keeps pace with the world.
progress.
From a black and white silent video of the beginning of the XX century to the XXI century of cinema . ... class " B " at least because it, in fact, does not have a rental in cinemas.
2. Cinema as a mass art.
© 2003-2016 "Bibliofond".
Feedback User Agreement
Bibliofond is an electronic library of articles, educational and fiction literature.
Abstracts and term papers, practice reports and tests.
Theses and other creative, analytical works.
Our project is for those who are interested, for those who are studying and for those who really need it!
