Dean M. Munsterberg Respose

Inner development of moving pictures:

In this section, Munsterberg gives a brief history of photographic media, drawing on international sources and journalistic techniques. He uses this as the introduction into camera work. Then, he expresses the nature at which a camera can capture a scene differently than theater can portray it. The backgrounds can be changed, the film could take place 1000 miles from the site of its viewing, etc. After many film productions trying to capture theater performances, a natural progression occurred to enable camera work and the photoplay to be an art form of its own within the confines of the medium. Technical difficulties did not stand in the way, and photoartists started relying on the illusion produced by the camera in order to distinguish film from theater. Film led away from its roots in theater altogether.
Discussion question: Why was Munsterberg concerned with giving a historical context to the nature of photoplays when he actually notes that camera work is always going to be progressing anyway? Was his audience at the time completely not buying into film? It seems that everyone was accepting the nature of film anyway, as an art form developing before his or her eyes. Maybe I am getting ahead of myself.

The Purpose of Art:

I did get ahead of myself. In this section, Munsterburg explicitly says “the core of the public opinion remains the same; the moving pictures are no real art.” This gives reason to his undertaking of trying to find a place for the photoplay in the world. It needs to occupy a space in the cultural realm as an art form—a space completely its own.
Munsterberg mirrors Kantian themes of aesthetics here as well when he says “the highest art may be the furthest from reality.” Kant believed that the social context of art was not as important as the refined values placed upon it through proper judgments of taste. I think that this is what Munsterberg is getting at for film. He talks about the scholar/artist relationship to illuminate the differing reality offered up specifically by this art form. Continuing, he concludes that film receives its transcendence (in my opinion, to the refined Kantian realm of aesthetics) by rejecting reality and instead offering a succinct unity that comprises a system of its own.

The function of the photoplay:

Once again, I got ahead of myself. In this section, Munsterberg says, “ the richest source of the unique satisfaction of the photoplay is probably that aesthetic feeling which is significant for the new art.” In the last section, I only assumed that he was going to apply his neo-Kantian philosophies to film as a new form. He extrapolates his ideas into the psychological realm, though, as he says about this new art form, “it has been clothed in the forms of our own consciousness.” Continuing after this point, though, when he talks about the “psychical infection and destruction,” I don’t really understand. Maybe we can discuss this more in class. For now, I am just going to attribute this section to an assertion of his psychological knowledge. I do agree (and more importantly follow) his point about bringing beauty to the masses and how that is a rudimentary desire. At the end, I also found it very interesting that even though this art form only exists in our minds, it is being developed as the most collective of experiences. An interesting concept. The fact that it exists in our minds is what makes it so collaborative—I’d be excited as well, Munsterberg.

Why we go to the Movies:

In this section, I couldn’t help but become a little angry with Munsterberg’s resistance to an “undignified” endeavor like movies. He is now under the spell, just as the rest of the world. He also reconfirms that the intention of the photoplay is not to mirror reality, it is to create an entirely new one. In the end, he concludes that the photoplay is the art of the future. I didn’t really feel much of a connection with this piece as with the others. It seems like the more and more Munsterberg dives into specifics of film, the more he muddled in his pseudo-intellectual melding of concepts. I liked him better when he was introducing broad, sweeping concepts about the form, not specific, repetitious psychological concepts. I can see why his aversion to color, sound, etc was only a throwaway sentence by Andrew.