Edward R. O'Neill wrote:

 

> In other words, it's a question of paradigms, not of which

> argument is better.  Yes, you can insist that Bergson would

> make a better basis for talking about spectatorship, but

> people aren't going to turn around and do it because there's

> something larger than an argument:  that's a paradigm, and a

> paradigm decides what arguments are relevant.

 

All that said, is this necessarily the best approach to take to something like

film criticism or film theory?  To blindly attach ourselves to the "dominant

paradigm" regardless of what better tools may be available to us?  I think

not.  I understand the notion of paradigms and arguments and the differences

between them, but the position you're advocating seems to me like saying you

can't like country because alternative is the popular favorite (please correct

me if I have misunderstood your position : ).  I have often wondered many of

the same things raised by the initial post.  I for one don't think the

relevancy should be determined by the paradigm, but by the nature of the

question.  Certainly, a phenomenological approach to spectatorship is just as

valid as a psychoanalytic approach...or at least has the potential to be as

valid.

 

Ed Owens

 

----

Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the

University of Alabama.