We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
20. Borde, Les cinémathéques, pp. 79-80.
21. Roud, A Passion for Films, p. 19.
22. Butler, To Encourage the Art of the Film, p. 57.
23. Barr quoted in Roud, A Passion for Films, p. 33.
24. Iris Barry, “The Film Library and How It Grew,” Film Quarterly 22, no. 4 (Summer 1969): 26.
25. Iris Barry, “A Review of Film History in a Cycle of 70 Films,” in Art in Our Time: An Exhibition to Celebrate the Tenth Anniversary of the Museum of Modern Art and the Opening of Its New Building Held at the Time of the New York World’s Fair (New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1939), p. 335.
26. Barry, Let’s Go to the Movies, p. 224.
27. Iris Barry, D. W. Griffith: American Film Master (1940; reprint, New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1965), p. 13.
28. Richard Griffith, ibid., p. 5.
29. Barry, “The Film Library,” p. 21.
30. Quoted in Slide, Nitrate Won’t Wait, p. 21.
31. As late as the 1960s, the published program notes of the Wisconsin Film Society, one of the country’s oldest, centered almost completely upon the MOMA canon. See Arthur Lennig, ed., Film Notes (Madison: Wisconsin Film Society, 1960) and Classics of the Film (Madison: Wisconsin Film Society Press, 1965).
32. Arthur Knight, The Liveliest Art (New York: Macmillan, 1957), p. vii. Knight may also have exercised an influence on academic film teaching through his article “An Approach to Film History,” in Film Study in Higher Education, ed. David C. Stewart (Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1966), pp. 52-67. There Knight outlines the Basic Story for aspirant film teachers, with topics keyed principally to the MOMA canon.
33. For indications of the role played by other archives, see National Film Library, Forty Years of Film History: 1895-1935: Notes on the Films (London: British Film Institute, 1951); and Musée d’Art Moderne, 60 ans de cinéma; 300 années de cinématographie (Paris: Cinémathéque Frangaise, 1955). These publications offer versions of the Basic Story very similar to that promulgated by MOMA.
34. Erwin Panofsky, “Style and Medium in the Moving Pictures,” Transition no. 26 (Winter 1937): 128. A later version of the essay is available in Panofsky, Three Essays on Style, ed. Irving Lavin (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995), pp. 91-125. For a discussion of Panofsky’s treatment of film see Thomas Y. Levin, “Iconology at the Movies: Panofsky’s Film Theory,” in Meaning in the Visual Arts: Views from the Outside: A Centennial Commemoration of Erwin Panofsky (1892-1968), ed. Irving Lavin (Princeton: Institute for Advanced Studies, 1995), pp. 313-333.
35. Paul Souday, “Bergsonisme et cinéma,” Le Film no. 83 (15 October 1917): 10. For similar comments, see Vladimir Mayakovsky, “The Relationship between Contemporary Theatre and Cinema and Art [1913],” in The Film Factory: Russian and Soviet Cinema in Documents, 1896-1939, ed. Richard Taylor and Ian Christie (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1988), pp. 36-37.
36. For a discussion of the theoretical implications of this line of argument, see Noél Carroll, Philosophical Problems of Classical Film Theory (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988), pp. 20-29.
37. See Moishe Barash, Theories of Art from Plato to Winckelmann (New York: New York University Press, 1985), pp. 168-169.
NOTES TO PAGES 24-28
293