SCREEN-L Archives

February 1995, Week 1

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:
Paul Ramaeker <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 1 Feb 1995 12:35:42 CST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (24 lines)
----------------------------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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2