SCREEN-L Archives

March 1995, Week 1


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

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

Print Reply
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Paul Younghouse <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 1 Mar 1995 12:57:55 CST
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
text/plain (53 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Looks like Freelancr has been drowned out. I think Mike missed the point of the
objection, that being (in my reading, at least) to deny explanatory privilege to
author's intention (the Romantic Theory), in favor of deterministic accounts
reduce "what the author was trying to say" to the result of social and political
forces. So it's not simply competing views of what the author meant.
Apparently this is another case of a working practitioner who finds dominant
theory less than amenable to his interest in understanding film. Too bad,
we lose the insights of someone who deals with making the stuff in the real
Okay, now what about those of us who no longer believe in 19th century notions
of social and political forces?
Paul Younghouse
Indiana State University
-----Freelancr's----------Original message----------------------------
>ok, ok, ok...enough now I'm stuck in the 19th century with
>visions of "romantic aesthetics". Yup...I guess it really JUST DOESN'T MATTER
>what the hell the actual author of a piece of work was TRYING to say. It only
>matters what a bunch of bookworms THINK the artist was trying to say.
>Look, we could debate this till the proverbial cows go to Memphis, but when
>it comes down to it, the only analysis of a piece of work is that which an
>individual viewer/audience makes. I see blue, you see green. What makes one
>interpertation better or more accurate than the other? There ARE NO
>in art. Both opinions are valid and have merit and are worth consideration. I
>personally would just place more merit on the definition of a piece of work
>from it's creator, rather than from somone not assoiciated with the project.
>But that's just me, and who's to say my opiniopn is less valid than anyone
>else's? (except maybe Alison)
>That being said...I gonna go talk tech with the people on the production
Paul Younghouse                   ||
Department of Communication       || "Was ya ever bit by a dead bee?"
Indiana State University          ||     (Thanks to Rick Worland)
Terre Haute, IN   47809           ||
(812) 237-3235                    ||