映畵的 現實의 本質 = The Nature of the Reality of Film

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The main tradition of western aesthetics, deriving from Aristotle's poetics, adopts the view that art imitates nature or in Hamlet's phrase, holds “the mirror up to nature.”Painting and novel achieved a more accurate representation of nature, and plays seemed to carry Hamlet's ideal of the theatre to its limit. All these achievements were eclipsed, however, by the invention of photography. For the Camera, and especially the motion picture camera, was unique in its ability to represent nature. If the ideal of art is to create an illusion of reality, the motion picture made it possible to achieve this ideal in an unprecedented way.
But is the aim of art to imitate nature at 11? And if it is, what role remains for the other art when film achieves it so simply and perfectly? An anti-realist tradition therefore denies that the goal of art is the imitation of nature. It has argued that to create a work of art is not simply to copy the world but to add another, and very special, object to the world. This object may be valuable because it offers an interpretations or idealization of the world.
The Nature of the Reality of Film attempts to give the render a sense of difference between reality and cinematic reality, or realism and anti-realism through the discussion of film theory on reality such as Kracauer's Photographs reality, Bazin's Total Cinema, Arnheim's Complete Film and Cine'ma-Ve'rite.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 映畵的 現實의 原初的 意味
• Ⅱ. 映畵的 現實의 諸論
• (1) Siegfried Kracauer의 寫實反映으로서의 映畵論
• (2) Andre' Bazin의 Total Cinema의 神話
• (3) Rudelph Arnheim의 Complete Film論
• Ⅲ. Cine'ma-Vevite'的 現實論
• Ⅳ. 結 論