I am a writer and a film/videomaker. I am not an academician, although I
love eclectic analysis and insight into art etc. Here, we're dealing with
film/video & writing. I am one of those people who "thinks visually." If I
can't create images, at least in my head, then I feel my understanding is
stunted. To that end, I must say I appreciate the following from Gene Stavis.
I personally find my self just looking at scribbled words when the
discussion becomes so intensely abstract. Semiotics,
deconstructionism...it's all interesting....but isn't it ironic that the
discussion of a medium, --whether film or video--that is so visual, becomes
so tangled in the abstract?
Perhaps these words from Gene Stavis from July 9 should be tacked up on all
our bulletin boards right next to our computers. Though it is from the
Video/Film thread, I believe the NOTION behind his statement applies to other
On Sunday, July 9, Gene Stavis wrote the following:
I welcome the insights that semioticists have brought to the field. But when
that brand of discourse becomes the ONLY method of discussing the cinema,
questions like Mike's become understandable.
When one says "read" and talks about "texts", where is the picture aspect of
the discussion? It clearly becomes secondary and, in the case of video vs.
film, it practically disappears.
There should not be a "video vs. film" controversy. Both media are useful in
the study of the art form. And circumstances have evolved to the point at
which film is inconvenient and expensive compared to electronic reproduction.
But, to imply, indeed to say, that there is no practical difference between
the two, is incomprehensible to me.
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]