--- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Enric" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's not a crime to have models...
And I'm not saying it is. And I'm still not talking about videoblogging. You didn't say that a certain form was or could be a model for a certain type of cinema, Enric, you said that a certain form defined cinema. Whether you like it or not, this is wrong. If nothing else, you're confusing models and definitions. A definition is a statement conveying the fundamental character of a thing. The fundamental character of the cinema is images existing in time, not ninety minute narratives with three acts. That's the fundamental character of but one of many possible models for many possible types of cinema, not cinema itself, which is what you said. A model is work, construction, or in this case, schema, that serves as a plan from which a final product is to be made. It has nothing to do with fundamental characteristics of a thing, but with the imposition of paradigmatic reductions and limitations on those characteristics, with specifics. I agree that models--both in practice and in theory--can be valuable to videoblogging as to any art, as long as they remain models and don't, as Markus wisely warns, ossify into dogmas. But models are not definitions, Enric. And your definition of cinema was wrong. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Most low income homes are not online. Make a difference this holiday season! http://us.click.yahoo.com/5UeCyC/BWHMAA/TtwFAA/lBLqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/videoblogging/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
