Philosophical Enquiries
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Browsing Philosophical Enquiries by Subject "Aesthetics"
Now showing 1 - 12 of 12
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Art and Pragmatism: James and Dewey on the Reconstructive Presuppositions of Experience(2010) Crippen, MatthewDissertation by Matthew Crippen on the pragmatic construals by James and Dewey of how we experience works of art, supervised by EWC and defended in May of 2010, as submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy, Graduate Programme in Philosophy, York University, Toronto, Ontario.Item Open Access Kant and Aesthetics: an Introduction(1986) Cameron, Evan Wm.A brief introduction to Kant's Third Critique as presented in November 1986 at the request of Professor Seth Feldman to the undergraduate students enrolled within his 'Introduction to Fine Arts' course of the Fine Arts Cultural Studies programme, required at the time of all first-year students entering the Faculty of Fine Arts, York University, Toronto, Ontario.Item Open Access Nelson Goodman's 'Theory of Symbols': an Exposition and Critique(1985) Cameron, Evan Wm.Notes in outline form for a presentation on 13 February 1985 to the 'Media, Mind and Society' seminar of David R. Olson, Co-Director of the McLuhan Program in Culture and Technology of the University of Toronto, on the 'Theory of Symbols' of Nelson Goodman's Languages of Art [1968] and Ways of Worldmaking [1978].Item Open Access On the Inductive Structure of Works of Art (Oral Examination Abstract)(1970) Cameron, Evan Wm.Extended abstract of the author's dissertation 'On the Inductive Structure of Works of Art', summarising its logical and artistic enquiries, as used by the members of the examining committee of the Graduate School of Boston University before whom it was defended in May of 1970.Item Open Access On the Inductive Structure of Works of Art (Part I)(1970) Cameron, Evan Wm.Part I (of two parts) of the dissertation of May 1970 within which author unpacks and defends the conjecture that works of art must be structured to be playable as inductive games if they are to be experienced powerfully – the core construal upon which his subsequent discussions of the nature, scope and limits of screenwriting were to rest. [Part I encompasses the Abstract and Preface of the thesis, and Chapter I with appendices – a formal excursion into pertinent aspects of probability theory and inductive logic.]Item Open Access On the Inductive Structure of Works of Art (Part II)(1970) Cameron, Evan Wm.Part II (of the two parts) of the dissertation of May 1970 within which author unpacks and defends the conjecture that works of art must be structured to be playable as inductive games if they are to be experienced powerfully – the core construal upon which his subsequent discussions of the nature, scope and limits of screenwriting were to rest. [Part II encompasses Chapter II of the thesis wherein the root structures of the narrative and non-narrative arts are examined, confirming the suggestion, followed by its Conclusion and Bibliography.]Item Open Access On the Inductive Structure of Works of Art (Summary)(1970) Cameron, Evan Wm.A summary of the discussion and conclusions of the author's dissertation 'On the Inductive Structure of Works of Art', submitted and defended in May of 1970, comprising a revision of Chapter II amended at beginning and end to encompass material from the Introduction and Conclusion of the thesis, designed to enable readers to grasp the nature and consequences of its core conjecture – that works of art must be structured to be playable as inductive games if they are to be experienced powerfully – without attending to the logical and mathematical enquiries of Chapter I.Item Open Access Performers Playing Themselves(2016) Crippen, MatthewAn enquiry by Matthew Crippen into how we encounter actors as we perceive them by means of a movies, having encountered them within other movies beforehand. After discussing how we use photographs, he concludes that we cannot help but register the actors as actors as we encounter them enacting rôles. Echoing what filmmakers have said and done and adding to classic accounts of Cavell, Santayana and others, he concludes that the very nature of movies well-nigh invites performers to play themselves.Item Open Access Pudovkin's Precept [Summary]: Pudovkin, Kant and the Transcendental Unity of Apperception(1990) Cameron, Evan Wm.In 1926, Vsevolod Pudovkin solved the fundamental problem of film design by showing filmmakers how to select and order the parts of a movie (its shots, scenes and sequences of them) to ensure that viewers can perceive coherently and with least effort the events that they encounter by means of it. He did so by unwittingly bringing Kant's transcendental constraint of apperceptive unity to bear upon it, confirming with unprecedented elegance and power that respect for the constraints of the self-conscious perceptual integrity of observers is the primal precondition of authentic art. Within this address, I summarise Pudovkin's achievement and its Kantian context, condensing the story told within Parts 1-3 of the lectures on 'Pudovkin's Precept' available within the Evan Wm. Cameron Collection.Item Open Access Pudovkin's Precept, Part 1: the 'Basic Method' of Filmmaking(1967) Cameron, Evan Wm.In 1926, Vsevolod Pudovkin, a not-so-young Russian of thirty-two making his first movie of feature length, articulated within a brief manual for filmmakers how to solve the fundamental problem of film design by describing how to select and order the parts of a movie (its shots, scenes and sequences) to ensure that viewers can perceive coherently and with least effort the events that they encounter by means of them. How did he do it? How, indeed, could anyone have done it, much less an inexperienced filmmaker, accomplishing a feat of a kind unprecedented within commentaries by others upon any other art? To answer those questions is to comprehend not only the rudiments of how filmmakers make movies but the distinctive nature of the art of filmmaking itself. Within the lectures on 'Pudovkin's Precept . . .' available within the Evan Wm. Cameron Collection, I address those questions in order and with increasing refinement, unpacking in Part 1 how filmmakers came commonly to comprehend and use what Pudovkin said – the most significant prescription in the history of filmmaking.Item Open Access Pudovkin's Precept, Part 2: 'This Method of Temporal Concentration'(1977) Cameron, Evan Wm.In 1926, Vsevolod Pudovkin, a not-so-young Russian of thirty-two making his first movie of feature length, articulated within a brief manual for filmmakers how to solve the fundamental problem of film design by describing how to select and order the parts of a movie (its shots, scenes and sequences) to ensure that viewers can perceive coherently and with least effort the events that they encounter by means of them. How did he do it? How, indeed, could anyone have done it, much less an inexperienced filmmaker, accomplishing a feat of a kind unprecedented within commentaries by others upon any other art? To answer those questions is to comprehend not only the rudiments of how filmmakers make movies but the distinctive nature of the art of filmmaking itself. Within the lectures on 'Pudovkin's Precept . . .' available within the Evan Wm. Cameron Collection, I address those questions in order and with increasing refinement, unpacking in Part 2 how the precept, when understood as comprehensibly as Pudovkin would have wished, imposes additional requirements upon the making of movies intended to be 'works of art' – constraints within which too few filmmakers have been able and willing to work.Item Open Access Pudovkin's Precept, Part 3: Bringing Movies to Kant's 'Transcendental Unity of Apperception'(1987) Cameron, Evan Wm.In 1926, Vsevolod Pudovkin, a not-so-young Russian of thirty-two making his first movie of feature length, articulated within a brief manual for filmmakers how to solve the fundamental problem of film design by describing how to select and order the parts of a movie (its shots, scenes and sequences) to ensure that viewers can perceive coherently and with least effort the events that they encounter by means of them. How did he do it? How, indeed, could anyone have done it, much less an inexperienced filmmaker, accomplishing a feat of a kind unprecedented within commentaries by others upon any other art? To answer those questions is to comprehend not only the rudiments of how filmmakers make movies but the distinctive nature of the art of filmmaking itself. Within the lectures on 'Pudovkin's Precept . . .' available within the Evan Wm. Cameron Collection, I address those questions in order and with increasing refinement, unpacking in Part 3 how Pudovkin was able to do what he did only by unwittingly bringing Kant's transcendental constraint of apperceptive unity to bear upon the making of movies, confirming that respect for the constraints of the self-conscious perceptual integrity of observers is the primal precondition of achievement within every art.