That is totally dependent on the filmmaker. Again, that would depend on the filmmaker & what he/she considers to be art.
I wasn't speaking necessarily from the vantage point of individual artists. I was speaking of the cinematic arts as a whole. The question, "What is the nature of film? If film is to be a art form unto itself, what aesthetic should be exploited in order for it to maintain individuality?" One, I believe, should ask themselves is what differentiates film from all other forms of art. The answer to this question alone creates a catalyst for cinematic possibilities. What cinema is not is the idle arts; art, photography, sculpture, etc. because it remains in activity of something very much akin to music. This activity that gives music it's liberation to the spectators ear, and in cinema perhaps both through the spectating ear and eye, is what I constitute as time and space. If we are to agree with this assumption, that films individuality comes from the liberation of the ears and the eyes of time and space. Should the question now be posed that in order for films exploitation and, "the maintaining of its individuality", not come from the workings of cinema itself? But of the understanding of time and space manipulations, found directly in conjunction with mathematics and physics, (in particular)?
Absolutely. Unanswerable. Not only would that be dependent on the filmmaker, but also, the method of the synthesis would probably best come about during the process of filmmaking more than from the planning stage, yo. Instincts.
Absolutely/Unanswerable? I'm not sure I understand. If it is absolutely possible, why does this remain unanswered? We are not necessarily talking about film makers here, we are again referring to theoretics. Theoretically, I believe it is possible, do we have any proofs to show that it can? Again, if so, how? If Realism is a homogeneity of space, and Formulism is it's manipulation; how then would one synthesize the two to create a shade of grey that was both and neither?
You're right, we don't have any proofs. Therefore, not only is there no way (probably), it's probably not a question that should asked in a verbal sense. If there is an answer, it's probably best to let it reveal itself by itself. Absolutely not. There's a reason nature separated the left/mathematical side & the right/creative side of the brain.
I should mention now that every human being uses each side of his or her brain, that's common psychological knowledge. Now to the point, the Renaissance in particular saw a huge influx of polymaths who devoted themselves not just to the arts, but to the sciences as well, they came to understand science as an art and art vise-verse. Math was heavily thought of as a way to structure the arts, look at the Mona Lisa for example:
Beauty was thought to have some sort of mathematical representation. This is nothing new though, even the Ancient Egyptians thought the same thing. And they too even influenced Eisenstein, according to him:
"The representation of water, next to a representation of in eye, in hieroglyphs, means to 'weep' - but this is montage!"
I believe it is truly necessary to understand mathematical principals, especially physics, now, if we are to understand time and space manipulation within the new art.
If you mean physically, yes. But I sorta get the feeling it would probably hurt more than help. I don't know. But if there is a way, I somehow think that it would involve the formula discovered by that one guy who the film A Beautiful Mind is based on.
This is my thoughts on this, feel free to agree to disagree:
There is a danger which film faces today and perhaps tomorrow if not undone through the understanding of broader concepts, one of cinematic/visual stagnation. If we do not rise to face the challenges of the future, the advancement of this medium seems bleak. One may ask then, “How do we avert out impending doom?” The answer to this question lay in the past itself and beyond the confines of the very medium on which we work.
I’ll support my claim with a metaphor. What does the painter do when the only color given to him is blue? Without the shades of white nor black, they cannot provide any means of contrast; and without any other primary colors, such as yellow, they cannot create green. What I’m alluding to within this metaphor is that the cinematic artist not only need to express their interest in other mediums outside itself to improve it, but I’m also referring to the creation of movements within themselves that will evolve the medium itself and catapult it into new realms. Whosoever is under the illusion that film in and of itself cannot create such movements is giving up too soon I believe. Under what circumstance must artistic movements come about only through painting and music only, and why? Have we not the gall to at least try? If so, what prevents us from this individualist approach to progressive movements? My answer to this is that we have created our own stagnation, without care of real cinematic progression, but rather the limited scope of cinematic experimentation existing within itself. We must push forward, and the only way to do this is to, (metaphorically), obtain different shades and colors which will allow us the freedom and base on which to create our own movements and masterpieces of originality.
Above, I provided a picture of a cubist piece by Pablo Picasso. Let’s examine the very nature of cubism for a moment shall we? In aesthetics and in it’s influences. Cubism, (as with any movement), does not come from itself. In other words, cubism did not create cubism. Cubism came about through other art forms such as impressionism, expressionism, and the like. With the very thought in mind, the true creator of procured movements takes these inspirations into account, reflecting on history in the collective sense, and creates their own movements through their creative understanding of blending these forms together. So we in a sense, (among other concepts in the process), blend impressionism and expressionism together and we introduce the world to a new form which one calls “Cubism”.
With the time span of only a little over one hundred years of existence, film has not lived a long enough life to really bring anything new to the table as far as the artistic sense is concerned. However, this limitation need not exist. The advantage to film, more than any other art form, is that is has the ability to blend all other types of art forms; literature, art, photography, music, whatever it may be, film can blend it somehow. So lets say we want to incorporate Cubism into a cinematic sense. One could simply make the mise-en-scene and whatever it pertains be ambiguous in nature, meanwhile, to add the “kick” of what the painting provides as “uncompromising lines” which give birth to the figure itself, we can have jarring edits which illustrate cinematically the same thing. What if we intend to blend other artistic concepts known through history and make them, cinematically, our own. The point illustrated here is that nothing is off limits to the cinematic form. Film, however brief in its birth, can evolve into a species thought impossible by other forms of art. The only limitations it has is the film maker themselves and their creativity, and the lack thereof.
Outside the time-displacing behavior of the atom, I don't see how. The only way would be to understand how an atom does so when it shows up in two places at the same time. And I don't see that happening anytime soon. Heck, probably not during the lifetime of all of humanity, TBH.
Again, this is why mathematics seems so very relevant to me.
IMO, art, no matter how high, is best created thru instinctual means than by any kind of intellectual understanding. Therefore, I feel that by asking these kinds of questions may end up more stifling to the process than anything else.
But that conclusion, like all things, is purely relative.
I don't think you can have instinct without intellect, and the better the intellect the better the instinct. But this was not necessarily either what I was asking. My question was the purely philosophical question of the nature of cinema. The philosophical question of what can we know within the limits the art?
Reply to Topic
