2010年紀(jì)錄片外文翻譯--紀(jì)錄片實踐中“創(chuàng)造性”概念的合理化和再概念化（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　1700英文單詞，1萬英文字符，3100漢字</p><p>　　出處：Kerrigan S, Mcintyre P. The ‘creative treatment of actuality’: Rationalizing and reconceptualizing the notion of creativity for documentary practice[J]. Journal

2、of Media Practice, 2010, 11(2):111-130.</p><p>　　The ‘creative treatment of actuality’: Rationalizing and reconceptualizing the notion of creativity for documentary practice</p><p>　　Susan Kerri

3、gan & Phillip McIntyre</p><p><b>　　ABSTRACT</b></p><p>　　Grierson defined documentary as ‘the creative treatment of actuality’. The aim of this article is to add to existing disc

4、ussions of this phrase. Attention will be given to documentary as art, and the Griersonian notion of ‘a(chǎn)rtist’. An examination of the relationship between art, creativity and documentary production and consumption will ra

5、tionalize and reconceptualize creativity for documentary practice. This reconceptualization of documentary creativity will result from three theoretical perspe</p><p>　　KEYWORD：documentary creative practitio

6、ner; art creative process ;documentary production</p><p>　　INTRODUCTION</p><p>　　The phrase ‘the creative treatment of actuality’ has become a standard definition of documentary.1 The axiom is m

7、ost often used without attribution and has become so entrenched in documentary discourse that the origins of the quote have become irrelevant (Grierson 1933: 7–9). But for research accuracy, provided below is the origina

8、l quote, written to focus on the desirable qualities of a documentary producer.</p><p>　　Documentary, or the creative treatment of actuality, is a new art with no such background in the story and the stage a

9、s the studio product so glibly possesses. (Grierson 1933: 8)</p><p>　　However, Grierson never fully explained the meaning of the phrase ‘the creative treatment of actuality’ and his omission has led to signi

10、ficant discussion from within the area/field of documentary studies (Austin and de Jong 2008: 284; Barsam 1992: 89; Beattie 2003: 53; Braddeley 1970: 250; Corner 1996: 13; Guynn 1990: 21; Hardy 1979; Montagu 1964: 281; N

11、ichols 2001: 39; Rabiger 1998: 3; Rosen 1993: 76; Winston 1995). Academic explanations of the terms ‘treatment’ and ‘a(chǎn)ctuality’ seem to be easi</p><p>　　Winston provides one in-depth interpretation of ‘the c

12、reative treatment of actuality’: The application of the adjective ‘documentary’ to film [and use of ‘documentary’ as a noun meaning a documentary film] most appositely flags the fact that, despite claims to artistic legi

13、timacy [‘creativity’] and dramatic structuring [‘treatment’], when dealing with this film form we are essentially and most critically in the realm of evidence and witness [‘a(chǎn)ctuality’][sic]. (Winston 1995: 10)</p>

14、<p>　　Interpreting creativity – as being artistically legitimate – automatically draws on the popular understanding of ‘creativity’, where creativity is perceived as allow- ing humans ‘the ability to act spontaneou

15、sly, to freely form ends and choose between means’ (Petrie 1991: 1). The assumption here is that art and creativity are equivalent when in fact recent research into creativity shows that this may be too simplistic and mi

16、sleading.</p><p>　　‘Creativity’ and ‘Art’ are terms that popular culture has coupled with the Romantic ideal but, as Margaret Boden points out, this is problematic since ‘romanticism provides no understandin

17、g of creativity’ (Boden 2004: 15). From this perspective, Romantic understandings of ‘Art’ perpetuate a belief that artists work through mysterious processes. This perception allows the artist to be viewed as a ‘divinely

18、 inspired creator’ (Zolberg 1990: 116) or ‘quasi-neurotic artists who see their own creative</p><p>　　CRITIQUES OF GRIERSON’S WORK</p><p>　　In order to expose some of the conflations of ‘a(chǎn)rt’ an

19、d ‘creativity’ that exist within the way the domain of documentary work has been conceptualized, it becomes necessary to review some of Grierson’s writings (1946: 79–96);My separate claim for documentary is simply that i

20、n its use of the living article, there is also an opportunity to perform creative work. I mean that the choice of the documentary medium is as gravely distinct a choice as the choice of poetry instead of fiction. Dealing

21、 with </p><p>　　Grierson’s writings exhibit his implicit understanding of the fundamental choices and considerations that a documentary film-maker engages in when conceiving and realizing a documentary. He d

22、escribes processes and choices faced by the practitioner as they ‘pass from the plain [or fancy] descriptions of natural material, to arrangements, rearrangements, and creative shapings of it’ [sic] (1946: 79), thus allo

23、wing the practitioner to create documentary scenes which become ‘better guides to screen </p><p>　　THE SYSTEMS MODEL OF CREATIVITY</p><p>　　Creativity research, which emerged through the latter

24、half of the twenty- first century, identified that individually focused approaches to creativity failed to explain why some highly skilled individuals achieved notoriety while others did not (Csikszentmihalyi 1996; Gardn

25、er 1993; Sternberg 1988, 1994;Weisberg 1993).</p><p>　　From this concern researchers developed a hypothesis ‘that multiple components must converge for creativity to occur’ (Sternberg and Lubart in Sternberg

26、 1999: 10), and from this research came the confluence approach to creativity. This approach opened the way for researchers to investigate the social and cultural aspect to creativity where creativity is now seen not as

27、‘the product of single individuals, but of social systems making judgments about individuals’ products’ (Csikszentmihalyi in Ste</p><p>　　CREATIVITY AS A STAGED PROCESS</p><p>　　The process aspe

28、ct of creativity is often exemplified as a staged one (Bastick 1982; Csikszentmihalyi 1996; Nemiro 2004; Wallas 1976).Csikszentmihalyi argues that the creative process is made up of five stages: preparation, incubation,

29、insight, evaluation, elaboration (1996: 83–86), whereas Wallas (1976) argues that it is a four-staged process: preparation, incubation, illumination, verification. These stages can be described in the following way: the

30、preparation stage includes an analysis of th</p><p>　　CREATIVITY AS A COLLABORATIVE PROCESS</p><p>　　The collaborative aspects of documentary production are well documented within the literature

31、 (Buscombe 1981: 32; Chapman 2006; Nichols 2001). Even with the technological developments of digital video (DV), most documentary film-makers would find it very demanding to make a film by themselves. The statement of B

32、asil Wright, who worked alongside John Grierson, is just as applicable today as it was when films were shot using larger crews: a film is created both by the single inspiration of the dir</p><p>　　CONCLUSION

33、</p><p>　　In summary, the exposition of these rational approaches to creativity should allow for documentary practitioners to reject Romantic notions that perpetuate a mythical and irrational link between in

34、dividuals, art and creativity. It should then become possible to realign the practice of documentary film-makers, working within collaborative production contexts, with the current research- based understandings of creat

35、ivity as outlined above. In doing this, it should also be recognized that documenta</p><p>　　Therefore, a creative research approach that investigates acts and contexts of creation, as well as exposing tacit

36、 and explicit demonstrations of skills, knowledge and methods of documentary practice could help researchers to tease out the creative forces that are at work for documentary practitioners.</p><p>　　Finally,

37、 to return to Grierson’s phrase, ‘the creative treatment of actual- ity’, it has been argued that if we reconceptualize what the term ‘creativity’ means it then becomes apparent that we should agree with Grierson’s defin

38、ition of documentary provided we see creativity as a systemic, staged and collaborative process as current evidence-based academic research does. If we persist with interpreting Grierson’s definition through a highly Rom

39、antic and mythical understanding of creativity, we w</p><p>　　“對現(xiàn)實的創(chuàng)造性處理”：紀(jì)錄片實踐中“創(chuàng)造性”概念的合理化和再概念化</p><p>　　Susan Kerrigan & Phillip McIntyre</p><p><b>　　摘要</b></p&

40、gt;<p>　　格里爾遜把“紀(jì)錄片”定義為“對現(xiàn)實的創(chuàng)造性處理”。本文的目的是繼續(xù)對這個定義進(jìn)行探討。我們關(guān)注的是作為藝術(shù)形式的紀(jì)錄片以及“藝術(shù)家”的格里爾遜式的概念。我們將探討藝術(shù)、創(chuàng)新和紀(jì)錄片制作和消費之間的關(guān)系，進(jìn)而將紀(jì)錄片實踐進(jìn)行合理化和再概念化。本文從三個理論視角探討紀(jì)錄片創(chuàng)新再概念化的過程。首先，創(chuàng)新的系統(tǒng)模型提供了一個創(chuàng)造性紀(jì)錄片系統(tǒng)的整體視角。其次，階段性的創(chuàng)意過程理論與紀(jì)錄片的制作過程相同。最后的理論提

41、出了團(tuán)隊創(chuàng)造力，說明了協(xié)作紀(jì)錄片工作。在總結(jié)部分，本文簡要討論了紀(jì)錄片實踐活動創(chuàng)新理論的合理性。</p><p>　　關(guān)鍵詞:紀(jì)錄片創(chuàng)新的從業(yè)人員;藝術(shù)創(chuàng)新過程;紀(jì)錄片制作</p><p><b>　　引言</b></p><p>　　“對現(xiàn)實的創(chuàng)造性處理”階段已經(jīng)成為紀(jì)錄片的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)定義。這個眾人皆知的定義，但是并沒有出處。它已經(jīng)在紀(jì)錄片話語中占

42、有一席之地，所以該定義的出處 也就無關(guān)緊要了(Grierson 1933: 7–9)。但是為了使得研究更加嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)，下面提供了 最開始的出處，關(guān)注的是一名合格紀(jì)錄片制作人需要具備的品質(zhì)。</p><p>　　紀(jì)錄片，或者是對現(xiàn)實的創(chuàng)造性處理，是一個新的藝術(shù)形式，而且和工作室的產(chǎn)品相比，它并沒有故事背景和舞臺。（Griereoiil933:8)</p><p>　　但是，Grierson從未對“

43、對現(xiàn)實的創(chuàng)造性處理”的意義進(jìn)行完整的解釋，而且他的疏漏使得紀(jì)錄片研究領(lǐng)域內(nèi)的研究人員展開了有意義的探討(Austin and de Jong 2008: 284; Barsam 1992: 89; Beattie 2003: 53; Braddeley 1970: 250; Corner 1996: 13; Guynn 1990: 21; Hardy 1979; Montagu 1964: 281; Nichols 2001: 39;

44、Rabiger 1998: 3; Rosen 1993:76; Winston 1995)。在紀(jì)錄片話語中看似很容易就能 找到“處理”和“現(xiàn)實”這兩個術(shù)語的學(xué)術(shù)性解釋（Winston 1995)，但是“創(chuàng)造性”意義的解釋和闡釋仍然沒有定論的。人們對“創(chuàng)造性”的概念普遍存在誤解，其藝術(shù)內(nèi)涵普遍存在于紀(jì)錄片和電影制作中。機(jī)關(guān)如此，紀(jì)錄文學(xué)繼續(xù)援引 Grierson及其門徒的成果。他們將紀(jì)錄片定為一種“藝術(shù)”?；诖?，“藝術(shù)” 是什么以及一個

45、“藝術(shù)家”如何創(chuàng)造出一個作品被認(rèn)為是創(chuàng)新的過程，而且對這個過程的理解是理解未來協(xié)作性和創(chuàng)新</p><p>　　Winston針對“對現(xiàn)實的創(chuàng)造性處理”提出了一種深入的闡釋：將形容詞“紀(jì)錄的”應(yīng)用到電影中（作為名詞，其含義是一部紀(jì)錄片），盡管要求藝術(shù)的合法性 (“使造性”）和戲劇結(jié)構(gòu)（“處理”），在處理電影形式時，我們本質(zhì)上而且 最重要的是我們就在證據(jù)和證人的范疇內(nèi)（“現(xiàn)實”原文如此）。（Winston 1995

46、:10)</p><p>　　如果以藝術(shù)合法性的方式解釋創(chuàng)造性，就會自然而然地用到“創(chuàng)造性”的通俗理解---創(chuàng)造性被理解為允許人們“能夠自發(fā)地行動，自由地形成目的，并自由選擇利用何種方式”（Petrie 1991:1)。這里的假設(shè)是藝術(shù)等同于創(chuàng)造性，但事實上最新的創(chuàng)造力研究表明，這個假設(shè)可能過于簡單，也存在誤導(dǎo)性。</p><p>　　“創(chuàng)造性”和“藝術(shù)”這類術(shù)語是流行文化加上浪漫主義的理

47、想，但正如瑪格麗特?博登指出的那樣，這種說法是有問題的，因為“浪漫主義沒有提供對創(chuàng)造性的理解”（博登2004:15)。從這個角度看，對“藝術(shù)”的浪漫主義理解使得“藝術(shù)家在神秘的過程中工作”的觀念長存。這個觀念認(rèn)為藝術(shù)家是一個“神圣的創(chuàng)造者” (Zolberg 1990:116)或類似神經(jīng)質(zhì)的藝術(shù)家。他們把他們自己創(chuàng)造過程的本質(zhì)視為自我表達(dá)的過程” (McIntyre 2008b:1)。然而，這種浪漫主義理想的缺陷之一是藝術(shù)品被認(rèn)為和它們

48、的“創(chuàng)造者”的思想有關(guān)，而和它們的實物本身無關(guān) (Petrie 1991:4)。那些對創(chuàng)造性做過實證研究并就這種現(xiàn)象的構(gòu)成建立理論學(xué)說的研究人員是竭盡全力去解釋紀(jì)錄片從業(yè)者的創(chuàng)作過程和產(chǎn)品的區(qū)別。產(chǎn)品是指創(chuàng)造性實踐活動的最終結(jié)果(Bailin 1988: 61-86; Csikszentmihalyi 1995，1999; McIntyre 2003:2; Pope 2005: 38; Sawyer 2006)。</p>

49、<p>　　對格里爾森著作的批判</p><p>　　為了揭示概念化的紀(jì)錄片工作領(lǐng)域內(nèi)“藝術(shù)”和“創(chuàng)造性”共通的地方，我們必要回顧一下格里爾森的著作(1946: 79-96)。我個人對紀(jì)錄片的理解就是在現(xiàn)存著作的使用中，同樣有機(jī)會進(jìn)行創(chuàng)造性的工作。我的意思是選擇紀(jì)錄片媒介和選擇詩歌而非小說大相徑庭。處理不同的材料應(yīng)該是處理不同工作室的美學(xué)問題。 (Grierson 1946: 80)</p>

50、<p>　　格里爾森的著作闡明他對紀(jì)錄片電影制作人在構(gòu)思并創(chuàng)造出一部紀(jì)錄片時的一些基本的選擇和考慮的理解。他說明了制作人在“由對自然的材料的簡單的（想象的）描述轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)樽匀坏牟牧系陌才?、重排以及?chuàng)造性的塑造”時面臨的過程和抉擇（原文如此）（1946: 79)。因此，允許制作人創(chuàng)作紀(jì)錄片場景，同時變成“闡釋現(xiàn)代世界熒屏的更好的指南”（1946:80)。</p><p><b>　　創(chuàng)造性的系統(tǒng)

51、模型</b></p><p>　　創(chuàng)造性研究誕生于二十世紀(jì)的下半葉，它發(fā)現(xiàn)對創(chuàng)造性單獨集中的方法不能解釋為什么一些技術(shù)精湛的人聲名狼藉，而有的人卻不是這樣(Csikszentmihalyi 1996; Gardner 1993; Sternberg 1988, 1994; Weisberg 1993)。</p><p>　　研究人員從這個問題出發(fā)，建立一種假設(shè)：“多個組成部分必

52、須集合在一起，然后創(chuàng)造性就出現(xiàn)了”（Sternberg and Lubart in Sternberg 1999: 10)，自此產(chǎn)生了針對創(chuàng)造性的匯合研究方法。該方法為探究創(chuàng)造性的社會和文化方面的研究人員開辟了道路。該方法認(rèn)為創(chuàng)造性現(xiàn)在己經(jīng)不是“個體的產(chǎn)物，而是判斷個人作品的社 會系統(tǒng)的產(chǎn)物 ”（Csikszentmihalyi in Sternberg 1999: 314)。</p><p>　　創(chuàng)造性是一個漸

53、進(jìn)的過程</p><p>　　創(chuàng)造性的過程流程方面的創(chuàng)造力往往是階段性的(Bastick 1982; Csikszentmihalyi 1996; Nemiro 2004; Wallas 1976)。特米哈伊認(rèn)為創(chuàng)造的過程分為五個階段：準(zhǔn)備期、潛伏期、洞察力、評估、詳細(xì)闡述(1996:1996 - 83)，而沃拉斯(1976)認(rèn)為創(chuàng)造性包括四個階段：準(zhǔn)備期、潛伏期、闡明期和驗證期。這些階段可以如下描述:準(zhǔn)備階段包

54、括分析的問題的分析(Lubart2000-2001:296)。在潛伏階段中， 思想被認(rèn)為是意識之下的問題研究。（特米哈伊1996:79)。</p><p>　　創(chuàng)造性是一個協(xié)作的過程</p><p>　　文獻(xiàn)中詳細(xì)記載了紀(jì)錄片制作的協(xié)作方面(Buscombe 1981: 32; Chapman 2006; Nichols 2001)。甚至在電子錄像的科技發(fā)展過程中，大多數(shù)紀(jì)錄片電影制作人發(fā)

55、現(xiàn)自己制作電影很吃力。和格里爾森一起研究的Basil Wright的觀點適用于過去利用大團(tuán)隊電影拍攝的模式，但同樣適用于當(dāng)今的紀(jì)錄片制作。他認(rèn)為電影之所不僅需要導(dǎo)演的個人智慧，也需要集體的努力以及不同專家的熱情，他們來自五湖四海，帶著一身的技能，為了共同的目標(biāo)而努力著。(Wright 1972:20)</p><p><b>　　結(jié)論</b></p><p>　　總之

56、，這些有關(guān)創(chuàng)造性的合理的方法應(yīng)該允許紀(jì)錄片制作人拒絕浪漫主義的想法，切斷個人、藝術(shù)和創(chuàng)造力之間神話和非理性的聯(lián)系。應(yīng)該調(diào)整的紀(jì)錄片制片 人的實踐活動，他們應(yīng)該在共同協(xié)作、共同制作的環(huán)境下，同時，還應(yīng)該認(rèn)識到 紀(jì)錄片制作人的實踐活動同時受這樣做，它還應(yīng)該認(rèn)識到，紀(jì)錄片電影制片人的做法是同時受到紀(jì)錄片制作和他們工作的發(fā)行環(huán)境的限制和影響。在這種環(huán)境中，個人和集體的選擇是存在可能性的。此外，他們一定會接觸到的結(jié)構(gòu)決定了他們的行動，而他們的行動

57、實現(xiàn)了建立在所有紀(jì)錄片從業(yè)者和電影制作人前輩的創(chuàng)造性協(xié)作和活動基礎(chǔ)之上的紀(jì)錄片產(chǎn)品和過程。這些創(chuàng)造性的活動發(fā)生在社會和文化環(huán)境之中。社會和文化環(huán)境本身就對這種創(chuàng)造性的工作有深遠(yuǎn)的影響。這種對創(chuàng)造性的基礎(chǔ)的再概念化能夠從電影制作人的角度接近創(chuàng)造性的紀(jì)錄片制作。在這個過程中，電影團(tuán)隊中的個人可以被看作是個體或者集體，因為他們具有利用所學(xué)知識和技能并將其轉(zhuǎn)化為創(chuàng)造性成果的能力。正是這種合理化的過 程，而非臆想的、神秘的過程讓他們被視為具有創(chuàng)造

58、性的人。</p><p>　　因此，一種探究創(chuàng)造行為和環(huán)境的創(chuàng)造性的研究方法以及紀(jì)錄片實踐活動中隱性 和顯性的技能、知識和方法可以幫助研究人員理清對紀(jì)錄片從業(yè)人員中起作用的創(chuàng)作動機(jī)。</p><p>　　最后，我們回到格里爾森的短語…“對現(xiàn)實的創(chuàng)造性處理”上。有人認(rèn)為如果我們對“創(chuàng)造性”進(jìn)行重概念化，那么顯而易見的是，我們應(yīng)該贊同格里爾森對于紀(jì)錄片的定義。和當(dāng)前基于證據(jù)的學(xué)術(shù)研究一樣，我們

59、將創(chuàng)造性視為 一種系統(tǒng)的、階段性的以及共同協(xié)作的過程。如果我們堅持用極度浪漫主義和神秘的對創(chuàng)造性的理解方式來闡釋格里爾森的定義的話，我們將會遺失一些可能性。這些可能性貫穿紀(jì)錄片電影制作人的事跡日常實踐活動中。通過將當(dāng)前研究和創(chuàng)造性以及紀(jì)錄片話語相結(jié)合，如上所述，我們確信我們可以合理地使用紀(jì)錄片電影制作中“創(chuàng)造性處理方式”的概念。因此，讓格里爾森對紀(jì)錄片的定義：“對現(xiàn)實創(chuàng)造性的處理“再次成為紀(jì)錄片的實踐社區(qū)的合理的基礎(chǔ)，目的是重概念化藝術(shù)