From: anja ross (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Jul 06 2010 - 12:11:38 PDT
*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