Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Appears in Collections:||Communications, Media and Culture Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status: ||Refereed|
|Title: ||Critics and Makers|
|Authors: ||Velez-Serna, Maria A|
|Issue Date: ||Jul-2017|
|Citation: ||Velez-Serna MA (2017) Critics and Makers, Cinema Journal, 56 (4), pp. 143-144.|
|Abstract: ||First paragraph: One of the most recalcitrant habits I acquired from my film studies education is the tendency to refer to films as “texts.” That structuralist abstraction has its role, but the work of arranging words and that of assembling images are very different practices. People who write about films and people who make films based on the written word know very well that they are incommensurable. The videographic work that [in]Transition: Journal of Videographic Film & Moving Image Studies publishes allows for authors to think “in the original language,” as they say one should do with philosophy. But as this point has been made so much more eloquently before, I focus here on one observation regarding the practice of peer-reviewing videographic work.|
|DOI Link: ||http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/cj.2017.0052|
|Rights: ||This is a pre-copyedited version of an article accepted for publication in Cinema Journal following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version is available through the University of Texas Press: https://doi.org/10.1353/cj.2017.0052|
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact email@example.com providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.