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 IN PRAISE OF THEORY
enjoys what is already available, but an inspiring, encouraging, creative appreciation; we need theoretical understanding and a sort of aesthetics which does not draw conclusion from already existing works of art but demands and expects such works of art on the basis of theoretical forecasts. What is wanted is a responsible public and canny aestheticists.
That is the justification for the film societies which have now sprung up in most civilized countries. There have, of course, long been societies of music-lovers and the like, whose object was to afford opportunities for the enjoyment of the less popular and more valuable works of art and to give support to good art and good artists, but only such art and artists as already existed. The theoretically expert members of film societies have a different task : they offer a ready-made public to the producer thereby encouraging him to dare try something new and good. After all there are few capitalists who make bad films on principle and would not willingly make good films if good box-office returns were assured in advance — and if they knew a good film from a bad one. The public bears part of the responsibility for the development of the art of the film and a sense of this responsibility is slowly beginning to spread at last. From a Swiss audience I first heard the word 'film-conscious' in the sense in which others use the word 'class-conscious' and it is to be hoped that other picturegoers will increasingly become film-conscious in this sense.
There are few among present-day aestheticists who deny in principle the artistic possibilities of the film, But many of them regard this new art as embryonic. Such critics would like to wait for some Shakespeare of the film and draw conclusions from the deathless works of the film classics. It remains to be asked : how will they recognize such works without a theoretical, aesthetic understanding of the film? Where will they find the standards, the evaluating principles with which to demonstrate and explain the qualities of a film?
Here is a great opportunity for aestheticists not merely to register and expound aesthetic values produced without their aid, but to participate in the production of such values and in the creation of the spiritual conditions which make them possible.