From: anja ross (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 12:12:09 PDT
*Because of intonation!
*
2010/7/6 anja ross <email suppressed>
> *Dear Myron,*
> *if you back it up with daily films then it is difficult if you have not
> the original language.*
> **
> *Anja
>
> *
> 2010/7/6 anja ross <email suppressed>
>
>> *Dear Myron,*
>> *About sequences and repetitions: There are two things which I
>> experienced through Experimentalfilm flicker. First it might run dead in a
>> way and second I am not sure it words helps as voice over because i know
>> silence and the unspoken words between lines.*
>> **
>> *Anja
>>
>> *
>> 2010/7/6 anja ross <email suppressed>
>>
>> Dear Myron,
>>> Now I need to look to Max Wertheimer. It doesn 't matter if 1912 or not.
>>> Now we need to discuss the meaning of *repetition in general* and *in
>>> eminently, especially and specially*. So I do not have any television so
>>> that I cannot back it up with examples of daily films.
>>>
>>> Yours faithfully and Tor!
>>>
>>> Anja
>>>
>>> 2010/7/6 Myron Ort <email suppressed>
>>>
>>> Max Wertheimer dealt with this phenomenon in his 1912 "Experimental
>>>> Studies on the Seeing of Motion.
>>>> The term "phi phenomenon" comes out of his Gestalt Psychology. Its
>>>> all interesting and relevant material which has informed me and many
>>>> artists and filmmakers for a long time now.
>>>>
>>>> I am not seeing anything new to think about in any of this discussion
>>>> yet.
>>>>
>>>> Myron Ort
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 6, 2010, at 11:44 AM, email suppressed wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Yes, my understanding is that the question of how the illusion of
>>>> > movement occurs in cinema got taken up into the much broader debate(s)
>>>> > between psychoanalytic film theory and cognitive film theory. The
>>>> > former envisions a more passive spectator (i.e. one who is "sutured"
>>>> > by the processes of the "apparatus," which replicates the "dominant
>>>> > ideology" that "positions the subject" - makes subjects out of passive
>>>> > viewers who cannot avoid this happening to them, in other words). The
>>>> > latter - cognitive film theory - asserts a more active spectator,
>>>> > emphasizing all the ways we process and "fill in" the input from the
>>>> > screen. Critics of the persistence of vision explanation don't like
>>>> > the way it reduces the illusion of movement in film to brute
>>>> > physiology, and want to emphasize, instead, the "creative" (in a very
>>>> > broad sense of that term) input from the viewer's active cognitive
>>>> > processes.
>>>> >
>>>> > Per Nicky's email, I've always wondered if our ability to track
>>>> > movement (apparent movement) across still frames has something to do
>>>> > with vision being "discrete" rather than "continuous" (if that's what
>>>> > you meant by "sampled in packets" Nicky). If vision is indeed a
>>>> > sampling process rather than continuous, that might help explain why
>>>> > we can see motion in still images - we're primed to do so. But that's
>>>> > only IF vision is discrete, and the jury is still out on that. And
>>>> > btw, I'm no scientist, so please file this under sheer speculation.
>>>> >
>>>> > Jonathan Walley
>>>> > Dept. of Cinema
>>>> > Denison University
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Quoting "email suppressed>:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I think they are distinct issues, but the authors want to grind
>>>> >> their axes, so they do some polemicising early on in the essay,
>>>> >> before they settle down to looking at the issues around flicker
>>>> >> fusion, Phi, persistence etc. I posted the link because it does
>>>> >> deal quite usefully with how the illusion of movement has come to
>>>> >> be understood by psychologists and neuro-scientists as having
>>>> >> nothing to do with "persistence of vision", although there are
>>>> >> still debates going on within these communities about how various
>>>> >> movement phenomena occur. For example, the wagon wheel effect is
>>>> >> not peculiar to film but can be observed in ordinary objects in
>>>> >> continuous light, eg, car wheels appearing to go backwards and
>>>> >> forwards. One theory has it that this is because data is sampled in
>>>> >> packets, against another that says it's to do with different cells
>>>> >> in the visual cortex competing to register contrary motion stimuli.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If you put this into Google: Schouten, J. F. (1967). Subjective
>>>> >> stroboscopy and a model of visual movement detectors, you will get a
>>>> >> link to a PDF of a paper on explanations for why the wagon wheel
>>>> >> effect can occur in continuous illumination.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Nicky.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On 6 Jul 2010, at 17:56, malgosia askanas wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> I don't understand how the question of the mechanism whereby we
>>>> >>> have the illusion of motion when watching film segues into the
>>>> >>> question of "passive" vs "active" viewing. For example, "La
>>>> >>> Jetee" doesn't require any engagement of the mechanism for the
>>>> >>> illusion of motion. Does this mean that when we view it, we are
>>>> >>> condemned to passive spectatorship?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> -m
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > FrameWorks mailing list
>>>> > email suppressed
>>>> > http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> FrameWorks mailing list
>>>> email suppressed
>>>> http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
email suppressed
http://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks