Abstract

Being the cinema, heir of painting, among other arts, it is natural that these two forms of representation have been theorized either by researchers in the field of film studies (Aumont, 2004), visual arts (Manovich, 2005), by filmmakers (Eisenstein, Godard...). Much of this theorization has had the object of studying biographical films of painters (cf. the work organized by Thivat, 2011). The question of the dialogue between cinema and painting has been posed by Queiroz (2012) ; by Nunes (2014). However, if we consider the example of the film Le Mystère Picasso, although Henri-George Clouzot filmed Picasso in the creative act, as spectators we do not have access to the genesis of the creative process, we only see the gestures and features of Picasso. This is, the cinema has functioned as a technology of recording, memory and digital composition, as a translator of the creative process of a work of art. Hence, as part of the research project “Cinema and painting in dialogue”, we intend to question film writing (cinematographic editing) as “translator” of the genesis of the creative process of a work of art; to establish, through filmic writing, the process of creating a work of art: drawing, painting, sculpture... And bringing cinema and painting closer together in the dialogical process of receiving and appropriating the work by the public.

Highlights

  • Heir of painting, among other arts, it is natural that these two forms of representation have been theorized either by researchers in the field of film studies (Aumont, 2004), visual arts (Manovich, 2005), by filmmakers (Eisenstein, Godard...)

  • Much of this theorization has had the object of studying biographical films of painters

  • The question of the dialogue between cinema and painting has been posed by Queiroz (2012) ; by Nunes (2014)

Read more

Summary

Lumière pintor?

No filme de Godard, La Chinoise (1967), a cena em que uma personagem interpretada por Jean-Pierre Léaud afirma que Lumière era «um pintor», «o último pintor impressionista». Do mesmo modo que para Godard, também, para Aumont (2004,33), Lumière foi “o último pintor impressionista da época” devido a dois efeitos de realidade: a quantidade e a qualidade. As vistas Lumière deslumbram também os espectadores devido à perfeição e à quantidade de pormenores que mostram, razão pela qual o cinema escapa à sua herança (o brinquedo ótico, o zootrópio...) e passa para o lado da arte, ainda que uma arte menor, como era a pintura pompier 2 (Aumont, 2004, 34). O segundo aspeto dos efeitos de realidade é a qualidade, dado que as vistas Lumière captam a luz e o ar, objetos pictóricos que foram erigidos pela pintura impressionista, tornando-os “palpáveis, infinitamente presentes (Aumont, 2004, 34). E, além do mais, elas se mexem... (Aumont, 2004, 36)

Cinema e pintura
Biografias de pintores na tela
Para uma ontogénese do ato criativo
Qual então o posicionamento etiológico do ato que as cria?
Referências bibliográficas
Full Text

Published Version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.