Show simple item record  

dc.contributor.authorNannicelli, Theodore
dc.date.accessioned2011-11-18T02:07:46Z
dc.date.available2011-11-18T02:07:46Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.identifier.citationNannicelli, T. (2011). Why can’t screenplays be artworks? The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 69(4), 405-414.en_NZ
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/10289/5902
dc.description.abstractReviewing 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.isoen
dc.publisherWileyen_NZ
dc.relation.urihttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6245.2011.01484.x/fullen_NZ
dc.subjectscreenplayen_NZ
dc.subjectfilmen_NZ
dc.titleWhy can’t screenplays be artworks?en_NZ
dc.typeJournal Articleen_NZ
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/j.1540-6245.2011.01484.xen_NZ
dc.relation.isPartOfThe Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticismen_NZ
pubs.begin-page405en_NZ
pubs.elements-id36682
pubs.end-page414en_NZ
pubs.issue4en_NZ
pubs.volume69en_NZ


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record