Sunday, 4 December 2011

@Phil - Comment

Thank you for your comment Phil, I felt I should try and address some of your concerns as a post just incase you don't see them in the comments

1. I shall refer to deconstruction ONLY I have started to write the essay now and I fill it is starting to flow, mainly because of the structure plan you suggested in the last post so Thankyou for that!

2. I have found out looking back that it should be META FICTION as you suggested so I have refered only to that and dropped the meta narratives

3. The quote in the third paragraph was not to talk about Lacan but just the idea how an identity could be built up through multiple meaning and examples but mainly the bit that says "imagery identifications" that describes typical traits of fiction and explaining how meta-fiction breaks this apart
Is this wrong?

4. I have followed the sequence but maybe I need to tweak para 3 if the quote is wrong and confusing the structure

5. The images of The Scream and Ghost Face I have used to explain the idea of deconstruction and language


Figure 1 and 2 show Edvard Munch’s The Scream and Ghost Face from the film entitled Scream (1996), both appear to be showing the same iconic image, except that Munch’s painting visualises insanity and expression whereas Ghost Face has been used as a depiction of fear as a stalker and torturer in the film’s franchise.  These images explain how visual culture is not a set symbol especially if represented in a different context ...

Bascially as an example of a text to suit different visual cultures

Again Is this wrong?

Please can you comment back and give me your opinion on points 3 and 5 so that if I need to change them I will hopefully have enough time to do this


  1. Hey Adam - the problem with using a very specific practitioner (Lacan) to make a point that ultimately isn't about 'Lacan' rather makes using 'Lacan' pointless - and it does suggest that you're not suddenly a Lacanian expert, which means this is 'borrowed magic' - like you're walking around in a pair of shoes several sizes to large. Perhaps you need to find a different strand of supporting evidence that does the job you need it to do, without introducing another theoretical element (or distinct personality) into the debate.

    Re. the Scream and Ghostface thing; I'm still not sure this is what you mean; deconstruction seeks to destablise agreed meanings, and so revealing them as arbitrary (and so flexible). Does Wes Craven's appropriation of Munch's image 'deconstruct' the original meaning of the painting? No - it just ignores the original meaning - it's a blank appropriation; it makes the original meaning into something else. Deconstruction is a knowing, purposeful dismantling of something so as to reveal it's inner workings, so no, I don't think that Wes Craven is engaging in the act of deconstructing 'art' when he appropriates Munch's iconic image - I think he's just taking it. I think you need to be very clear about deconstruction as a purposeful act to reveal something about the thing being deconstructed (i.e. Funny Games doesn't just appropriate horror movies, it does something 'to' horror movies to 'say' something 'about' horror movies and their audiences). When I talked about the painting and the mask, it was to make a point about the difference between originality of expression (the painting) and originality by appropriation (the Scream mask). I think you need to tighten up your understanding of the 'job' of deconstruction and how it's applied.

  2. Ok well it is just two paragraphs i need to rework

    I understand what you are saying I will try and find a better quote for paragraph 3 that doesn't talk about a practioner that i havent mentioned

    And I will drop the mention of the painting and ghostface in paragraph 2

    But I am building up to the idea suggested about what Funny games says about the audiences etc

    Thankyou for making these points clear I will rework and resolve this in my essay :)