From: David Tetzlaff (email suppressed)
Date: Mon Feb 07 2011 - 06:37:32 PST
I dunno, that may have been Jerry T.'s point -- that the site was as silly or even sillier than it was painting academese to be. (Or not...)
Anyway, the versions of Film Studies I've practiced - rooted in semiotics and ideology theory - don't really put much stock in intent. So I think I'd agree that the site seems intended to offer a parody, and the implied critique therein is specious and puerile to boot. But I don't much care what the anonymous author had in mind. I found the results amusing on their own terms (or my own terms), in a non-sequitor kind of way. So MY aim in posting the examples to the list, I guess, was not to expose, but to detourn, 'poach', make lemonade, something like that.
"Through the use of subversive semiotics, Frameworks fragments order and chaos."
On Feb 6, 2011, at 5:45 PM, Tony Conrad wrote:
> Hi David--------
> Thanks for exposing the speciousness of this puerile effort at academic parody.
> On Sun 02/06/11 2:44 PM , David Tetzlaff email suppressed sent:
>> The fluid identification of the viewer in The Flicker echoes shared fears
>> of the post-Columbine epoch.
> FrameWorks mailing list
> email suppressed
FrameWorks mailing list