Cato Wittusen

ABSTRACT This article argues that there are inflections of modernism in André Bazin's realist aesthetics and that he should be considered an early champion of post–World War II modernism in cinema. Within classical film theory, which took its point of departure in the silent cinema era, modernism is taken to be incompatible with realism. Moreover, both modernism and realism are seen to rely on the principle of medium specificity in this context, whereas Bazin argued that aesthetic progress in cinema is intrinsically related to the medium's capability to be impure. Recently, we have seen several attempts at connecting Bazin's aesthetics with high‐modernism in the visual arts. However, I argue that it is more instructive to focus on their differences. This comparison is relevant for developing a deeper understanding of the form of modernism at stake in Bazin's aesthetics, especially when it comes to the question of the spectator's role in the constitution of meaning. Furthermore, Bazin's proto‐modernist aesthetics must be discussed with an eye to his ardent support of what he considered a new avant‐garde in narrative cinema and his lasting, but often misunderstood, interest in ambiguity as an aesthetic category.

A common critique directed at many philosophical readings of films is that they fall short of paying careful attention to film aesthetics. The film-philosopher Robert Sinnerbrink, who defends what he has dubbed ‘romantic film-philosophy’, is a notable exception on this score. Taking his cues from Stanley Cavell's writings on film, Sinnerbrink has developed and argued for a notion of philosophical criticism that takes aesthetic qualities of film into consideration. This paper attempts to relate Sinnerbrink's notion of philosophical criticism to recent conversations about the differences between academic writing on film and film criticism. I argue that some aspects of Sinnerbrink's approach make it natural to compare it with traditional film criticism. There are also elements of his approach that are comparable to the use of films to support and develop theoretical perspectives in some academic writings. Next, I consider whether Sinnerbrink succeeds in challenging the traditional hierarchy of philosophy over film and art. I argue that interpreting film with attention to how it contributes philosophically, as he recommends, doesn't entirely escape the philosophical disenfranchisement of film. In the final part of the paper, I argue that if we want to re-enfranchise film, we should pay more attention to what film and other art forms offer us that we do not find in philosophy. In my discussion, I make use of André Bazin's notion of film criticism and Simone de Beauvoir's view on the metaphysical novel.

This paper discusses how Wittgenstein’s thinking informs recent conversations about art and aesthetic practice by examining his influence on the work of the noted modernist art critic, Michael Fried. Fried considers an excerpt from Wittgenstein’s Culture and Value, with a puzzling thought experiment, to help us see more clearly the Canadian artist Jeff Wall’s photographic vision and aesthetic. I consider Fried’s account of the photographic practice of Jeff Wall, especially his photograph Morning Cleaning, Mies van der Rohe Foundation (1999)

This essay discusses Wittgenstein’s suggestion that we may speak of a distinction between a word’s primary and secondary senses. Instead of seeing the distinction merely as an example of a puzzling language use, many commentators have attempted to work out the distinction in terms of a supplement to a general theory of sense that they presume Wittgenstein developed in his later writings. I don’t think it is fair to ascribe such systematic aspirations to Wittgenstein.Indeed, Wittgenstein speaks explicitly of the distinction only at two junctures in his work; this suggests that the distinction in itself was not of great import to Wittgenstein. In my view, it is essential to see how the example resonates with other ideas and problems in his writings, for example, his discussions of rule-following in part one of the Investigations. By my lights, this has not been fully recognized in the standard literature. In discussing the distinction, I will argue for the importance of paying attention to a broader context than what is normally considered.