SCREEN-L Archives

February 1993

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
From:
"P.J. O'Connell (PA) 814-865-3333" <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 26 Feb 1993 20:56:00 EST
In-Reply-To:
V5293E AT TEMPLEVM.BITNET -- Tue, 23 Feb 1993 13:11:17 EST
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (14 lines)
(I'm awake, Jay.  I think.)
 
"...an outdated concept like objectivity..." is, in fact, of some interest
to me, at least.  But to be more specific, I'm interested in ending the
disingenuous arguments claiming "there is no such thing as 'objectivity'"
(I'd argue "there is no such thing as 'subjectivity'," at least in the same
sense that the subjectivists rail against "objectivity").  If we can agree
that "objective" and "subjective" are the unattainable ends of a continuum
suitable for judging certain characteristics of a film/book/history/etc.,
then perhaps we can begin examining films, and explaining them to audiences,
in a more rational fashion.
 
PJO

ATOM RSS1 RSS2