Open Access (free)

The interest in aesthetics in philosophy, literary and cultural studies is growing rapidly. This book contains exemplary essays by key practitioners in these fields which demonstrate the importance of this area of enquiry. New aestheticism remains a troubled term and in current parlance it already comes loaded with the baggage of the 'philistine controversy' which first emerged in an exchange that originally that took place in the New Left Review during the mid-1990s. A serious aesthetic education is necessary for resisting the advance of 'philistinism'. Contemporary aesthetic production may be decentred and belonging to the past, but that is not a reason to underestimate what great works do that nothing else can. Despite well-established feminist work in literary criticism, film theory and art history, feminist aesthetics 'is a relatively young discipline, dating from the early 1990s'. The book focuses on the critical interrogation of the historical status of mimesis in the context of a gendered and racial politics of modernity. Throughout the history of literary and art criticism the focus has fallen on the creation or reception of works and texts. The book also identifies a fragmentary Romantic residue in contemporary aesthetics. The Alexandrian aesthetic underlies the experience of the 'allegorical'. 'Cultural poetics' makes clear the expansion of 'poetics' into a domain that is no longer strictly associated with 'poetry'. The book also presents an account of a Kantian aesthetic criticism, discussing Critique of Pure Reason, Critique of Aesthetic Judgement and Critique of Judgement.

Open Access (free)
Pleasantville and the textuality of media memory
Paul Grainge

, notions of authenticity and indexicality have been seriously problematised. As Prince notes, the result in film theory has been to shift emphasis ‘away from naïve notions of indexical realism in favour of an attention to the constructedness of cinematic discourse’. 28 Digital technology has raised new questions about the ideology of cinematic representation and referentiality and the status of memory is

in Memory and popular film
Open Access (free)
The Admirable Crichton and Look Back in Anger
Stephen Lacey

a proscenium arch. (It is ironic that such a conception of the theatrical should be mobilised in film theory when theatre practice since the mid–1950s has resolutely moved away from the dominance of the literary text, has frequently jettisoned verisimilitude in theatre design, even in the staging of naturalist plays, and has often abandoned the proscenium – and indeed the entire theatre auditorium

in British cinema of the 1950s
Feminist aesthetics, negativity and semblance
Ewa Plonowska Ziarek

3 Ewa Plonowska Ziarek Mimesis in black and white: feminist aesthetics, negativity and semblance As Sarah Worth suggests, despite well-established feminist work in literary criticism, film theory and art history, feminist aesthetics ‘is a relatively young discipline, dating from the early 1990s’, and thus still open to contestation and new formulations.1 In this context it might seem paradoxical that one of the founding texts of feminist aesthetics, Rita Felski’s Beyond Feminist Aesthetics: Feminist Literature and Social Change, proclaims its impossibility

in The new aestheticism
Open Access (free)
Ian Scott and Henry Thompson

(Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995), pp. 37–​57. 3 Andrew Sarris, ‘Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962’ in Gerald Mast, Marshall Cohen and Leo Braudy (eds) Film Theory and Criticism: Introductory Readings (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 4th edn, 1992), pp. 585–​8. C on c l u sio n Notes 241 Th e ci nem a of Ol iver   S to ne 4 Timothy Corrigan, ‘Auteurs and the New Hollywood’ in Jon Lewis (ed), The New American Cinema (Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press, 1998), p. 42. 5 James Riordan, Stone: The Controversies, Excesses, and Exploits of a

in The cinema of Oliver Stone
Robert Murphy

deprecate him’ (pp. 152–3). 4 A Mirror for England was popular and well reviewed – by David Pirie in Time Out (10–17 June 1973) and Charles Barr in Monogram (issue 3 in 1972), for example – but it was never afforded the academic respectability granted Pirie’s A Heritage of Horror (1973) and Barr’s Ealing Studios (1977). This was partly a matter of timing. In 1970 when film

in British cinema of the 1950s
Robert Burgoyne

. 21 See Gabilondo, ‘Morphing Saint Sebastian’, p. 186. See Also Stephen Prince, ‘True Lies: Perceptual Realism, Digital Images, and Film Theory, Film Quarterly 49: 3 (Spring 1996), 30. 22 Woody Hochswender, ‘When Seeing Cannot Be Believing’, New York Times (23 June 1992), 1

in Memory and popular film
Open Access (free)
Theoretical debates and the critical erasure of Beckett’s cinema
Matthijs Engelberts

and as such it throws an exceptionally revealing light on the difficult nature of the relations between literature and emerging media in the twentieth century. Notes 1 Kamilla Elliott, Rethinking the Novel/Film Debate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 17. 2 See for instance W. J. T. Mitchell, ‘Showing seeing: a critique of visual culture’, in Mirzoeff, Nicholas (ed.), The Visual Culture Reader, 2nd edn (London: Routledge, 2002), p. 91. 3 See Matthijs Engelberts, ‘Film and Film: Beckett and early film theory’, in Linda Ben-Zvi and Angela Moorjani

in Beckett and nothing
Katariina Kyrölä

rejects it. The reward is pleasure and idealisation, and the price is submission to a patriarchal structure of gendered subordination where women are reduced to beautiful surfaces. According to feminist psychoanalytical film theory approaches, such as Doane’s, it is pleasure that makes spectators unwittingly and unavoidably vulnerable and open to identifying with power structures that will keep them subordinated, whereas in the pro-​trigger warning arguments, subordination is often taken up as something that is easily recognisable in representation and discourse through

in The power of vulnerability
Anu Koivunen, Katariina Kyrölä and Ingrid Ryberg

film theorists ever since the 1970s, as they have investigated how our gendered subjectivities are formed through affective engagements with screen images on a deep psychosocial level (de Lauretis, 1984; 1994; Silverman, 1996; Stacey, 2010; White, 1999). What is particularly interesting about psychoanalytical feminist film theories is that they have understood our susceptibility to and longing for pleasure as being our greatest vulnerability in the face of patriarchal structures of  11 Vulnerability as a political language 11 domination: pleasure makes us

in The power of vulnerability