What is a Nation:
In the reading "What is a Nation", I found it interesting when Anderson discussed the fact that many people in imagined communities never even see each other. when I think of my own experience, I realize that when I meet a fellow American or Native American* with ancestors from the same tribe, there is often a possibility that we have nothing else in common. When we do find something that we share, it is usually not something uniquely attributed to our national community at all. In general, I bond with people over film, but even American films are internationally loved and appreciated, so the things we truly find to be common ground have nothing to with with our imaged community at all, instead it comes from our own individual preferences.
*While, according to the reading, being Native American does not connect me with any
modern nation because it is an ethnic group, it does connect me to a historical nation, seeing
as the present day United States was once divided into smaller tribes that were each a nation
on their own. Knowing where I come from in regards to that division makes me feel as
though I do, indeed, belong to the Cherokee nation in regards to imagined communities.
While reading I stumbled on the term "Mass Collective Identity" which I have a general understanding of, but decided to explore more in depth. I found an excerpt from Karen Christensen and David Levinson's Encyclopedia of Community: From the Village to the Virtual World Volume 1 that explains:
In the reading "What is a Nation", I found it interesting when Anderson discussed the fact that many people in imagined communities never even see each other. when I think of my own experience, I realize that when I meet a fellow American or Native American* with ancestors from the same tribe, there is often a possibility that we have nothing else in common. When we do find something that we share, it is usually not something uniquely attributed to our national community at all. In general, I bond with people over film, but even American films are internationally loved and appreciated, so the things we truly find to be common ground have nothing to with with our imaged community at all, instead it comes from our own individual preferences.
*While, according to the reading, being Native American does not connect me with any
modern nation because it is an ethnic group, it does connect me to a historical nation, seeing
as the present day United States was once divided into smaller tribes that were each a nation
on their own. Knowing where I come from in regards to that division makes me feel as
though I do, indeed, belong to the Cherokee nation in regards to imagined communities.
While reading I stumbled on the term "Mass Collective Identity" which I have a general understanding of, but decided to explore more in depth. I found an excerpt from Karen Christensen and David Levinson's Encyclopedia of Community: From the Village to the Virtual World Volume 1 that explains:
"A person's individual identity derives from a set of personal features that distinguish him or her from other individuals ('I am female, a New Yorker, a lesbian, a lawyer, and I like French Cuisine'). A person's collective identity is based on features that he or she shares with other (but not all other) individuals in a given social context such as gender (women), city of residence (New York), or sexual orientation (lesbian)" (pg 239).
It is clear that in the reading Anderson is focused on one specific feature (nationality) that people use to identify themselves. Based on my further research however, I realized that people need things like nationality, gender, and sexual orientation to define who they are. It is a unique combination of which groups a person belongs to that allows them to define their own individuality while still fulfilling the basic human need to feel as though they are a part of a group.
Introduction to the Book:
I thoroughly enjoyed the introduction to The Oxford History of World Cinema: The Definitive History of Cinema Worldwide by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. In the introductions I was fascinated by his definition between cinema and film using the idea that cinema "does not deal with every use of the film medium, but focuses on those which have concurred to turn the original invention of moving images on celluloid into the great institution known as cinema, or the 'the movies'" (pg xxi). To me this seems to be a very educated way to look at cinema, and a much more realistic classification of what information should be included in the book.
Nowell-Smith also writes about the importance of the audience and even censorship in the success of cinema, an idea that I have always been fascinated by. The most common example of this theory is the success of film noir that lasted very briefly in the overall history of film, but reflected a time when the audience demanded a product and Hollywood delivered. During the era of film noir, people of the United States were feeling pessimistic and dark due to the war overseas, and that is exactly what they wanted to read about in books and see on the silver screen. Hollywood producers picked up on the fact that Crime Novels were very profitable in the publishing world, and therefore decided to take the same hard boiled, anti-hero tone and put it on the screen with what the French later dubbed "film noir". Thanks to government censorship under The Hayes Code, film noir mastered the sexual innuendo, an idea that thrilled audience even more than actually seeing any sex on screen, therefore giving the movement even more popularity with the general public. Once the overall mood of America changed, however, the film noir dropped dramatically in popularity and a new genre entered its golden age.
In the introduction, Nowell-Smith refers to cinema as "the seventh art", which made me curious about what the other six were. According to The Dictionary of the History of Ideas, the classification of arts began with the Greeks who "regarded both sciences and crafts as belonging to the realm of art. Geometry and grammar were indeed areas of knowledge, rational systems of rules, methods of doing or making things, and so they certainly answered to the Greek meaning of the term 'art' [as well]" (http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-56).
As humanity progressed, however, this definition began to change. In the nineteenth century, the definition of art was narrowed to fine arts and eventually sculpture, painting, poetry, dance, architecture, and music were decided upon as the six arts (http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-56). Once film was introduced to the world, it became the seventh, and final, fine art to date.
It is clear that in the reading Anderson is focused on one specific feature (nationality) that people use to identify themselves. Based on my further research however, I realized that people need things like nationality, gender, and sexual orientation to define who they are. It is a unique combination of which groups a person belongs to that allows them to define their own individuality while still fulfilling the basic human need to feel as though they are a part of a group.
Introduction to the Book:
I thoroughly enjoyed the introduction to The Oxford History of World Cinema: The Definitive History of Cinema Worldwide by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith. In the introductions I was fascinated by his definition between cinema and film using the idea that cinema "does not deal with every use of the film medium, but focuses on those which have concurred to turn the original invention of moving images on celluloid into the great institution known as cinema, or the 'the movies'" (pg xxi). To me this seems to be a very educated way to look at cinema, and a much more realistic classification of what information should be included in the book.
Nowell-Smith also writes about the importance of the audience and even censorship in the success of cinema, an idea that I have always been fascinated by. The most common example of this theory is the success of film noir that lasted very briefly in the overall history of film, but reflected a time when the audience demanded a product and Hollywood delivered. During the era of film noir, people of the United States were feeling pessimistic and dark due to the war overseas, and that is exactly what they wanted to read about in books and see on the silver screen. Hollywood producers picked up on the fact that Crime Novels were very profitable in the publishing world, and therefore decided to take the same hard boiled, anti-hero tone and put it on the screen with what the French later dubbed "film noir". Thanks to government censorship under The Hayes Code, film noir mastered the sexual innuendo, an idea that thrilled audience even more than actually seeing any sex on screen, therefore giving the movement even more popularity with the general public. Once the overall mood of America changed, however, the film noir dropped dramatically in popularity and a new genre entered its golden age.
In the introduction, Nowell-Smith refers to cinema as "the seventh art", which made me curious about what the other six were. According to The Dictionary of the History of Ideas, the classification of arts began with the Greeks who "regarded both sciences and crafts as belonging to the realm of art. Geometry and grammar were indeed areas of knowledge, rational systems of rules, methods of doing or making things, and so they certainly answered to the Greek meaning of the term 'art' [as well]" (http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-56).
As humanity progressed, however, this definition began to change. In the nineteenth century, the definition of art was narrowed to fine arts and eventually sculpture, painting, poetry, dance, architecture, and music were decided upon as the six arts (http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv1-56). Once film was introduced to the world, it became the seventh, and final, fine art to date.
References:
Anderson, Bendedict (2006). Imagined Communities (New ed.) London, New York Interview with Benedict Anderson by Lorenz Khazaleh, University of Oslo Website.
Christensen, Karen, and David Levinson. The Encyclopedia of Community: From the Village to the Virtual World. Vol. 1. Thousand Oaks California: Brekshire Publishig Group, 2003. Print.
TATARKIEWICZ, W. "Classification of the Arts." Dictionary of the History of Ideas. The University of Virginia Library, 1 May 2003. Web. 29 Aug. 2009. .
Lydia, I love that you did extra research and included some really interesting references. I look forward to discussing what "mass collective identity" might mean and how it relates to notions of "national cinema". I also appreciated your writing about the nationhood of Native Americans; this is something I care deeply about and something we will definitely be discussing... (and hopefully we will be hosting a female native filmmaker at Citizen Jane! More on that soon!).
ReplyDelete