El Dominant Film or Institutional Mode of Representation
Standard and Mimesis
Abstract
Institutional Mode of Representation (IMR) has become the standard in filmmaking not only because it inherits the qualities considered standards in the arts tradition but also, and above all, because of the institutionalization of this form of representation. The powerful and invasive consolidation of IMR has rendered other forms of film invisible, to the point that it has become synonymous of film in general. This form of representation is the successor of memetics in arts, and has appropriated the qualities and precepts of this tradition and put them at the service of its ultimate goal of engagement and profitability.
References
Aristóteles. (trad. 1999). Poética. Madrid: Gredos.
Bloom, H. (1995). El canon occidental. Barcelona: Anagrama.
Bordwell, D. (1996). Narración en el cine de ficción. Barcelona: Paidós.
Bordwell, D., Staiger, J., & Thompson, K. (1997). El cine clásico de Hollywood. Barcelona: Paidós.
Burch, N. (1995). El tragaluz del infinito. Madrid: Cátedra.
Cárdenas, J. D. (2011). El cine clásico y su doble anacronismo del mito y el héroe. Cuadernos de Música, Artes Visuales y Artes Escénicas, 6(2), 69-86.
Eisenstein, S. (2003). La forma del cine. México D.F: Siglo Veintiuno.
Gombrich, E. (2014). Arte e ilusión. Nueva York: Phaidon.
Rojas, R. (2000). Un banquete canónico. México, D. F.: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Russo, E. A. (2008). El cine clásico. Buenos Aires: Manantial.
Sontag, S. (1969). Against Interpretation and Other Essays. Nueva York: Laurel.
Vanoye, F. (1996). Guiones modelo modelos de guión. Barcelona: Paidós.
Xavier, I. (2008). El discurso cinematográfico. Buenos Aires: Manantial.
Copyright (c) 2017 María P. Arango Benítez
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
