The next Industry Event at the Australian Film TV & Radio School is
     going to look at the relationship between the 'word', the 'idea' and
     visual representation - with particular reference to popular visual
     culture.
 
     The premise to be tested is this: WHY ISN'T TELEVISION GENERALLY
     PERCEIVED TO BE AN APPROPRIATE VEHICLE FOR IDEAS?  Why are the realms
     of the written (published) or spoken (radio) word seen to be the more
     obvious, comfortable places for ideas?
 
     Think of popular culture & you get - TV, cinema, comix, pornography
     (if visual; erotica if written).  It feels as if unless the word is a
     'womanword' like gossip, babble, chatter etc etc, the word is valued
     more highly than the visual.
 
     Compare the televisual treatment of news and current affairs; e.g. CNN
     vs Australian Broadcasting Corporation's News Radio.
 
     Is this because western European culture has always been very wedded
     to the notion of the visual, in fact, as Plato's Cave points out, a
     PICTURE IS only a picture and NOT THE REAL THING.
 
     And what are the implications of this for Australia, with an
     indigenous culture that has no history of the written word, but with
     a strong tradition of oral and visual representation.
 
     I would think my first port of call would be Walter Benjamin - to
     explore the differences between writing & visual literacy & what the
     implications of this are for social & political questions about seeing
     and thinking.
 
     But where to next??????
 
     ANY ASSISTANCE TO POINT US IN APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS FOR READING/
     UNDERSTANDING would be greatly appreciated.
 
     Neil Pollock
     Library Manager
 
     on behalf of
     Jane Mills
     Head of Screen Studies
 
     AFTRS
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]