From: anja ross (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 12:04:57 PDT
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