To Mike Frank:

 

Sorry for not signing my name to my 7/19 message.  Please note that the part

of my message that you refer to in your message of 7/21 is actually a quote

from an earlier Gene Stavis message.  However, since I neglected  to use "

and " it was easy for you to misinterpret.

 

My point was simply that as interesting as many of the discussions are

here...and I learn a lot from them...it is ironic that sometimes it gets so

abstract as to nearly lose contact with the film itself...and the language

used lets in so little light!

 

Here is my original message (WITH proper quotes) FYI:

 

Date:  Tue, 18 Jul, 1995 10:31 PM EDT

From:  MicroBader

Subj:  Re: USING VIDEO FOR FILMS

To:      [log in to unmask]

 

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

threads too.

 

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]