Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 29 Jan 1994 10:44:26 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Norman Holland suggests that one look at complex experimental results
on Kuleshov from "the spectator's point of view."
It is perfectly reasonable to look at results from the spectator's view;
except that the results become idiosyncratic, it seems to me.
I'm not a devoted experimentalist. The study I cited has my name
as the senior and actual writer of the words. The work was done by
psych graduate students as an *experiment*; a method that carries
different assumptions than the presumably psychoanalytic approaches
that others are urging.
There's nothing inherently better about one or the other. It's simply
a matter of what kind of evidence one is most comfortable with.
Give a forced choice, I prefer experimental over psychoanalyical.
Other people make different choices. It's not for me to criticize
their choice.
That said, I'd be interested in a brief simpler explanation of the
the experimental results from the viewpoint that Norm Holland suggests.
(This is not an invitation to a flamewar, please.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal Pryluck, Radio-Television-Film, Temple University, Philadelphia
<[log in to unmask]> <PRYLUCK@TEMPLEVM>
|
|
|