Burnett's many references to "textual analysis" throughout the chapters clearly indicate an understanding of text and structure derived from New Critical, Formalist, and Structuralist theory. Burnett perceives texts as entities which contain finite interpretations; he views images derived from either photo or cinema as the opposite of text. Many of his efforts to articulate a theory of interpretation seem a reaction to what he calls the textualization of the image. He believes that if we interpret an image as text, and via text, than the properties of text (empirical, finite) supersede those of image (ambiguous, unclear) in the interpretation.
I'm not sure that Burnett offers his readers any solution or viable alternatives to text-based interpretation of images. After all, he does say that he does not want to claim that we can ever be outside of language, yet he believes that films and viewers undermine interpretative swchemes that are text-based or text-informed. I find it difficult to see how such an approach can promote a pedagogy of integration of text and image into a composed work.
|Reviewer's comments||Front node of review|
Contact the reviewer: firstname.lastname@example.org