SCREEN-L Archives

February 1993

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 26 Feb 1993 13:42:46 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (15 lines)
I think what this is coming down to is that everything is political
and every thing is subjective because all images,whether they be
news, independent film, or snapshots, are invested in power.  I think it
should be assumeed that ALL images are subjective -- the challenge lies
in trying to decode their politics and understand how the image is
intended to provoke a specific reaction from the viewer or audience.
 
Even ethnographic film, which is supposed to be the most 'objective'
of all film genres is highly subjective.  KArl Heider spoke about the
'observational eye.'  I would argue there is no such thing.  Film is
inherently ablut the intersection of the film maker and subject.
Jason
Ithaca College
Ithaca, NY

ATOM RSS1 RSS2