{"id":7166,"date":"2014-01-16T00:53:49","date_gmt":"2014-01-16T05:53:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/?p=7166"},"modified":"2021-06-10T10:08:37","modified_gmt":"2021-06-10T15:08:37","slug":"whiteheadian-films","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2014\/01\/16\/whiteheadian-films\/","title":{"rendered":"Whiteheadian films"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"download\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Readers of this blog know that my recent book presents what’s essentially a Whiteheadian (and Peircian) theory of cinema. (A<\/em>\u00a0theory, not\u00a0the<\/em>\u00a0theory.\u00a0And when compared to something as deeply Whiteheadian in its details as, say, Donald Sherburne’s A Whiteheadian Aesthetic<\/a>, mine is, at best, “inspired by Whitehead.”)<\/p>\n

<\/span>To my knowledge, it is the only such theory of cinema that’s been developed to the extent of a full-length scholarly monograph. Peirce’s ideas have been applied to film in very many ways; the same cannot be said of Whitehead.<\/p>\n

Regular readers will also know that Whitehead is being taken seriously by numerous contemporary philosophers and cultural theorists, and that some of them — like Steven Shaviro — write a lot about film. So it’s probably just a matter of time before another Whiteheadian film treatise comes along.<\/p>\n

That doesn’t mean that Whiteheadians don’t like<\/em> films. The Whitehead Film Festival<\/a>, which takes place annually at one of the hubs of Whiteheadian process thinking, the Claremont, California, based Center for Process Studies<\/a>\u00a0— and which begins in a couple of days —\u00a0testifies to the seemingly natural link between Whitehead’s philosophy and the art of the cinema.<\/p>\n

The festival’s mission statement<\/a> informs us that the festival was formed when a group of like-minded thinkers asked themselves:<\/p>\n

\u201cHow can we, as Whiteheadians, foster a deeper awareness of our responsibility for the common good?\u201d<\/p>\n

[. . .]<\/p>\n

And one of the answers was this film festival. Films are the common language of people around the world; we share our cultures through film; we share our perceptions of what it is to be human, our trials and our transformations. Through film, the \u2018strangeness\u2019 of other cultures can turn into appreciation and understanding. And through appreciating and understanding one another, we exercise care for one another, doing what we can to seek and promote the common good.<\/p>\n

And so we select films of artistic excellence that do this very thing. Each film speaks of human dignity, of our responsibilities to one another, of problems common to us all, and of the hope of creative transformation in our very togetherness.<\/p>\n

Whiteheadian philosophy provides a worldview that fosters social and personal responsibility to one another and to the earth that sustains us. And so do the films we select each year. Thus, we are the Whitehead International Film Festival.<\/p>\n

That “thus” leaves me wanting to hear more about how exactly the films highlighted at the festival do<\/em> this.<\/p>\n

The list of films awarded the Whitehead Award<\/a> is intriguing, but doesn’t help much.\u00a0The criteria<\/a>\u00a0for festival selections seem broad enough to cover a great many good films:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. “The film shall exhibit artistic excellence in screenplay, music, and filming technique.<\/li>\n
  2. “The film shall promote the common good, which is defined as a society in which persons and communities care for one another\u2019s well-being.<\/li>\n
  3. “The film shall exhibit sensitivity to the human situation, promoting the dignity of all.<\/li>\n
  4. “As appropriate to the film\u2019s subject matter, the film shall foster ecological responsibility.<\/li>\n
  5. “The film shall cultivate a realistic hope of creative transformation.”<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The list is vague enough to be acceptable to most liberals (and even many conservatives), yet — unlike the world of film reviewers — is also refreshingly upfront about values beyond the aesthetic and recreational.<\/p>\n

    But what does it mean for a film to “promote the common good,” “exhibit sensitivity to the human situation,” “foster ecological responsibility,” and “cultivate” a “hope of creative transformation”? \u00a0For instance, can the common good be promoted without critiquing\u00a0systems that harm<\/em> the common good? \u00a0And is there a better form of critique than the honest depiction of circumstances faced by individuals and communities that are subject to systems that fail to promote the common good (etc.)?<\/p>\n

    What I’m getting at is that the promotion\/fostering\/cultivation of these things (the common good, ecological responsibility, creative transformation) might not be something that’s easily discernible in a single film, or that a film can do in and of itself. But effects such as these might be generated through the insights and conversations triggered and\u00a0encouraged by certain films. By showing us things that make other<\/em> people’s worlds tangible to us, and thereby evoking concern for situations different from ours — while demonstrating some of the connections and mutual dependencies between those worlds and ours — a film could contribute to the building of a common world that is more just and sustainable than the present one.<\/p>\n

    That’s what I think the organizers are getting at, but they seem to focus their Whiteheadian gaze at\u00a0films themselves<\/em>. I prefer to focus mine on the broader ecologies of film making, viewing, interpreting, and so on. Which is why my film theory is not a theory of “the ecology of films<\/em>,” but one of the “ecologies of the moving image” — ecologies of image-movement, image-in-movement, and movement-in-image.<\/p>\n

    In any case, the schedule<\/a>\u00a0looks very interesting, so\u00a0if you’re anywhere near Claremont, I recommend seeing what you can.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Readers of this blog know that my recent book presents what’s essentially a Whiteheadian (and Peircian) theory of cinema. (A\u00a0theory, not\u00a0the\u00a0theory.\u00a0And when compared to something as deeply Whiteheadian in its details as, say, Donald Sherburne’s A Whiteheadian Aesthetic, mine is, at best, “inspired by Whitehead.”)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":99,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[688745],"tags":[352,423,58947,58946],"class_list":["post-7166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cinema_zone","tag-film","tag-whitehead","tag-whitehead-film-festival","tag-whiteheadian-aesthetic"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4IC4a-1RA","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":2589,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2011\/02\/08\/whitehead-media-theory\/","url_meta":{"origin":7166,"position":0},"title":"Whitehead & media theory","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"February 8, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"Jussi Parikka at Machinology is reporting on media theorist Mark Hansen's move from a focus on media objects to a Whiteheadian focus on media processes. A few quotes: \"Well known are the Whitehead writings of Massumi and Manning in Montreal, and of course the recent Whitehead writings of Steven Shaviro,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Media ecology"","block_context":{"text":"Media ecology","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/media_ecology\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":8355,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2015\/07\/28\/sr-or-morton-on-the-universe-of-things\/","url_meta":{"origin":7166,"position":1},"title":"SR, or Morton on The Universe of Things","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"July 28, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Tim Morton has penned a nice (if thoroughly Mortonish)\u00a0introduction\u00a0to a very nice introduction (by Steven Shaviro) to speculative realism. With lines like these: \"Theory class, in other words, needs an upgrade. Theory class is pretty obviously quite narrow in any case. \u201cTheory\u201d is basically (mostly continental) philosophy or derivatives of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Philosophy"","block_context":{"text":"Philosophy","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/geo_philosophy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Gallery_Image_10562","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/files\/2015\/07\/Gallery_Image_10562-275x206.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1410,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2010\/12\/04\/planetary-alignment-in-claremont\/","url_meta":{"origin":7166,"position":2},"title":"planetary alignment in Claremont?","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"December 4, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"For anyone interested in the growing dialogue between Whiteheadian process philosophy and post-Continental metaphysical realism -- a dialogue that, in my view, is at the philosophical cutting edge for ecological thinking -- the Claremont conference seems as good as it gets, perhaps even a turning point. The dialogue between hard-core\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Philosophy"","block_context":{"text":"Philosophy","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/geo_philosophy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":4135,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2011\/05\/24\/process-integralism\/","url_meta":{"origin":7166,"position":3},"title":"Process integralism","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"May 24, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"Further on the integral theory front, I wanted to mention another angle on the Wilber-Whitehead conversation. Bonnitta Roy's article \"A Process Model of Integral Theory\" (pdf) in the December 2006 issue of Integral Review is a thought-provoking attempt to advance post-metaphysical integral theory further toward process thought and Dzogchen Buddhism\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Philosophy"","block_context":{"text":"Philosophy","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/geo_philosophy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":7677,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2014\/06\/21\/beatnik-brothers-in-parrhesia\/","url_meta":{"origin":7166,"position":4},"title":"“Beatnik Brothers” in Parrhesia","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"June 21, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"The new issue of Parrhesia: A Journal of Critical Philosophy\u00a0includes work by Quentin Meillassoux, Tristan Garcia, a review panel discussing\u00a0Katrin Pahl's Tropes of Transport: Hegel and Emotion, and a piece by me on the objects-processes debate in speculative realist philosophy. The latter, entitled \"Beatnik Brothers? Between Graham Harman and the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Philosophy"","block_context":{"text":"Philosophy","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/geo_philosophy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1032,"url":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/2009\/02\/23\/kauffman-shaviro-goodwin-et-al\/","url_meta":{"origin":7166,"position":5},"title":"Kauffman, Shaviro, Goodwin, et al.","author":"Adrian J Ivakhiv","date":"February 23, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"Complexity theorist Stuart Kaufmann recently gave a talk here from his book Reinventing the Sacred: A New View of Science, Reason, and Religion, which is getting more press these days than most books with a Spinozian\/Whiteheadian take on the emergent nature of intelligence, complexity, spirituality, and all that. Talking to\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Philosophy"","block_context":{"text":"Philosophy","link":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/category\/geo_philosophy\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7166","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/99"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7166"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7166\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":10594,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7166\/revisions\/10594"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blog.uvm.edu\/aivakhiv\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}