Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Wed, 1 Feb 1995 12:35:42 CST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>Frequently experimental cinema reaches a level of imagistic complexity
>>-figuration, abstraction- not found elsewhere. For me this is one of the
>>most rewarding parts of experimental cinema. Unfortunately this aspect of
>>the work appears to be frequently ignored by viewers and by those individuals
>>writing about the work. I wonder about the idea of visual competence. As I
>>think we will agree cinema study has been dominated by narrative and thematic
>>forms of analysis such as psychoanalysis, semeiotics, feminist theory, autre,
>>genre, and cultural theory etc. It appears to me that methods of analyzing
>>the cinema that emphasize visual competence, over narrative competence and
>>that work on the level of the image, specifically the abstract image, do not
>>exist. Is there a mode of analysis that I am not aware of? If so please
>>suggest references. Further, for those who teach how do you present filmic
>>abstraction to your students, what modes of analysis do you think are proper
>>or useful?
>>
>>any thoughts?
>>-Douglas Hunter
Try Jim Peterson's _Dreams of Order, Visions of Chaos_.
-PB Ramaeker
|
|
|