tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647781709349216836.post140279594633957786..comments2023-08-03T03:28:05.196-07:00Comments on Webb's Blog: @Phil - CommentAdam Webbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17905614077239124172noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647781709349216836.post-18443408922367543202011-12-05T01:49:07.850-08:002011-12-05T01:49:07.850-08:00Ok well it is just two paragraphs i need to rework...Ok well it is just two paragraphs i need to rework <br /><br />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 <br /><br />And I will drop the mention of the painting and ghostface in paragraph 2 <br /><br />But I am building up to the idea suggested about what Funny games says about the audiences etc <br /><br />Thankyou for making these points clear I will rework and resolve this in my essay :)Adam Webbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17905614077239124172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3647781709349216836.post-82182483833868103792011-12-04T15:23:39.795-08:002011-12-04T15:23:39.795-08:00Hey Adam - the problem with using a very specific ...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.<br /><br />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.tutorphilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11842833126210822641noreply@blogger.com