dc.contributor.author | Nannicelli, Theodore | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2011-11-18T02:07:46Z | |
dc.date.available | 2011-11-18T02:07:46Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2011 | |
dc.identifier.citation | Nannicelli, T. (2011). Why can’t screenplays be artworks? The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 69(4), 405-414. | en_NZ |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10289/5902 | |
dc.description.abstract | Reviewing film and literary theorists’ writing on the subject of the screenplay, one finds a tradition both of conceiving of the screenplay as a kind of artwork and of denying it art status. However, philosophers of art have been surprisingly quiet on this matter. I say ‘surprisingly’ because, pretheoretically, there seem to be some significant similarities between screenplays and theatrical scripts: typically, both are verbal objects which relate narratives that are intended to be enacted, either before a camera or a live audience. So, one might reasonably have the intuition that the screenplay is, like the theatrical script, a kind of dramatic literary work, and that the screenplay affords the same kinds of aesthetic interest and study as its theatrical cousin. | en_NZ |
dc.language.iso | en | |
dc.publisher | Wiley | en_NZ |
dc.relation.uri | http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6245.2011.01484.x/full | en_NZ |
dc.subject | screenplay | en_NZ |
dc.subject | film | en_NZ |
dc.title | Why can’t screenplays be artworks? | en_NZ |
dc.type | Journal Article | en_NZ |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/j.1540-6245.2011.01484.x | en_NZ |
dc.relation.isPartOf | The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism | en_NZ |
pubs.begin-page | 405 | en_NZ |
pubs.elements-id | 36682 | |
pubs.end-page | 414 | en_NZ |
pubs.issue | 4 | en_NZ |
pubs.volume | 69 | en_NZ |