SCREEN-L Archives

March 1995, Week 1


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
Matthew Brett Kassan <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Wed, 1 Mar 1995 12:58:42 CST
text/plain (30 lines)
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Hey Mike, what are the names and subscription addresses of the production
newsgroups you belong to? These really interest me. That would be great
if you can let me know. Thanks.  -- Matt Kassan
On Tue, 28 Feb 1995 [log in to unmask] wrote:
> ----------------------------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 ABSOLUTES
> 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
> newsgroups....
> Mike