Denizel, Deniz2020-10-012020-10-012014Denizel, D. (2014). "Sinemada estetik modeller olarak biçimcilik ile duyumculuğun karşılaştırılması". Kaygı. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi, 23, 185-204.2645-8950https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/149798http://hdl.handle.net/11452/13069Sinemada estetik bir model olarak biçimciliğin görünümü, XX. yüzyılın başından beri süregelen bir sinematografik üslup olarak dikkat çekmektedir. Sinemanın içsel dinamikleriyle kendini gösteren sinematografik evrim, bir yandan sinematografik dilin gelişmesini sağlarken, bir yandan da tekniksel evrimi bir sonraki basamağına taşımasını sağlamıştır. Dinamizm, kamera oyunculuğu, sahne dövüşü ve ambiyans müziği gibi modellerle kendini geliştiren biçimcilik yeni bir sıfat olarak biçim estetiğine, biçimcilikten türeyen duyumculuksa, duyum estetiğine dönüşmektedir. Yeni bir sınıflandırma olarak aşkın ve içkin sinematografi modelleri ise biçimcilik ve duyumculuk modellerini tanımlamaya yönelik teknikler olarak kendilerini göstermektedirler. Aşkın sinematografi kamera hareketiyle yaratılan sinematografik estetiği, içkin sinematografiyse özsel olarak estetik olan objelerin sinematografik olarak saptanması ilkesini temsil eder. Biçimcilik temel sinema kuramları bağlamında gerek dinamizmle, gerekse kurguyla ardışıklık yaratmakla alakalıyken, biçim estetiği tekniksel evrim bağlamında kamera hareketi ve bağlantılı disiplinlerin oluşturduğu organik birlikle alakalıdır. Biçimcilikten türeyen duyumculuk ise dinamik yapı içerisindeki bir aksiyonun arasında vukuu bulan kısa süreli ve yönetmenin izleyicinin dikkatini çekmek istediği statik yapılarla gerçekleşir. Duyumculuk, sinematografinin içine gömülü fotografidir.The appearance of formalism as an aesthetic model in cinema is obvious which continues as a cinematographic style since the beginning of twentieth century. The cinematographic evolution which manifests itself with the inner dynamics of cinema, provides the development of cinematographic language and by other side makes it reach the technical evolution to the next step. While formalism develops itself with dynamism, acting for camera, stage combat and ambient music models, transforms into form aesthetics with new qualities, sensationalism transforms into sensational aesthetics which is derived from formalism. As new classification models, transcendent and immanent cinematography models emerge as techniques which identifies the models of formalism and sensationalism. Transcendent cinematography represents the cinematographic aesthetic which emerged with camera action and immanent cinematography represents the principle of capturing objects which are essentially aesthetic. In the context of fundamental cinema theories, formalism is related with dynamism and consecutiveness by editing and form aesthetics is also related with camera action and organic synthesis which emerged with familiar disciplines in the context of technical evolution. Sensationalism morphed from formalism manifestfs itself by static structures which emerge in actions belong to a dynamic structure that director points at to the audience. Sensationalism in cinema is cinematography, in which embedded photography. When it must be discussed about the purpose of this article, it has to be exactly expressed that the connection between formalism and sensationalism in cinema has come to a point which both of them could be separated from each other as new different kind of forms. The evolution of cinematographic expression and methods could possibly define as new narrative languages especially in Hollywood Cinema. The main subject of the article is to find out static photographic forms embedded in dynamic cinematographic shootings, which could possibly have motions recorded by camera action, object action and sequential motions techniquely expressed by editing. The article is also focusing on new classes of form aesthetics models in cinema. Whatever explained in the article, the most fundemental why this article is written is to develope a rare hypothesis in cinema by focusing on formalism style. The theoretical and comceptional structure of the article established in collecting pieces and extracting them to a new area evaluated between formalism and narrative language in cinema. The language of expression by using formalism inevitably emerged a new evaluated side of formalism, which is sensationalism. At this point, also it must deffinitely be told that the director who uses sensational camera recordings does not mean that he/she had a purpose of using that as “senatinalsim in cinema” because it does not have a semantic ‘meaning pattern’ in cinematographic terminology. Another side of the summary is obtained data. In this subject, it should be discussed by using methods to find out how sentationalism mophes by formalism in cinema. The main method is detecting formalism areas areas and collecting sensational actions in the same sequence in a film. The second method is comparising different scenes which has detected relations. The final method is observing the cinematography models in different kind of films. The conclusion chapter of the article makes connections to the most fundemental levels of the article, in which new classifications of form aesthetics, identifications of formalism and sensationalism in cinema written in the introduction and progress levels of this expended summary.trinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessBiçimcilikDuyumculukEstetikSinematografiTeknik ve evrimFormalismSensationalismAestheticsCinematographyTechnique and evolutionArticle18520423