There is still an ambiguity about the nature of moving images. Film can
capture movement that is not perceptible to us, such as plant growth (we
can only detect the movement when the film is speeded up). Is a long
single take of a growing plant a 'moving image' in any sense relevant to
the moving images of film? Also, it is common in discourse on film to
refer to the 'illusion' of motion produced by the projection of timed
sequences of static images. Do you think our perception of motion in film
is an illusion? (I know of at least one argument that it is not, but I'll
wait to air that until others have their say).
Jeff
At 10:08 PM 1/6/99 +0100, you wrote:
>Unfortunatelly, the Carroll's article you, Jeff, mentioned is not accessible
>to me. But the problem is not unfamiliar to me.
>
>"Moving images" do mean images of movement, but also movement of images: an
>ordered sequence of images (or of image duration), be they images of
>movement or not.
>
>Of course, as with many "natural" categories (spontaneously achieved, by
>exposition to some set of phenomena), there are border cases where our
>classification of an instance as "moving image" may not be at ease.
>
>Imagine a projection of an ordered sequence of slides with the planned
>uneven timing of slide duration and their succession. And then imagine the
>same sequence of the same images but film-projected. The last one would be
>categorized as film - but what with the first one, with the
>slide-projection? I may not be sure how to classify the last case, and may
>not care about the "clear" classification. The existence of borderline
>cases, or of fuzzy inter-region among otherwise distinct categories, and our
>coresponding occasional classification insecurities, need not lessen our
>categorical assurancy with the most other, good prototypical cases. Also,
>even if I do not care to "clearly classify" such found borderline cases, I
>may still feel challenged to see what specific experiences are they
>offering, and compare them with the "clear" cases.
>
>Morover, as with all artifacts that aim at experience articulation, the
>category borders can be tempted with out of curiosity what experience would
>came out of it. As with experimental cases you mentioned Carrol mentioned.
>As it is the characteristic case with lot of avant-guarde work that is bent
>to investigate "out of border" regions of artifact making, and their
>experiential consequences.
>
>Such, either found or intentionaly produced, borderline cases are actually
>highly interesting not just for conceptual analysis, but for empirical
>theoretical research: How does they work; what makes them work; what are
>actual differences in experiences they rise, abilities they rely upon? How
>all of this relate with the "mainstream" category cases? My urging to take
>in consideration whole empirical field of "moving images" includes taking
>into consideration all borderline or out of border cases that may be
>relevant for the understanding of film. And understanding of film does not
>exclude but include understanding of other things that may appear
>experientially (and categorically) continuos with film, even if not
>"belonging" to film any more.
>
>Hrvoje
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jeffrey T. Dean <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: 06. siječanj 1999. 15:11
>Subject: Re: What is a film?
>
>
>>I appreciate this post. I have one question, however, about your own
>>restriction of film to 'moving images'. This view accords well with our
>>immediate intuitions and most theoretical accounts, but appears subject to
>>counter-examples. As Noel Carroll has recently pointed out in response to
>>Gregory Currie's endorsement of the 'moving image' concept of film, there
>>are films whose images do not move (Carroll's article, 'The Essence of
>>Cinema?', is in response to Currie's book, _Image and Mind: Film,
>>Philosophy and Cognitive Science_, and appears in _Philosophical Studies_
>>89: 323-330, 1998). Carroll lists the following examples, among others,
>>noting that all are films 'in the sense that they were constructed and
>>disseminated by means of standard film apparatuses':
>> 'Oshima's _Band of Ninjas_ (a film of a comic strip); Michael Snow's _One
>>Second in Montreal_ (a film of photos); Hillis Frampton's _Poetic Justice_
>>(a film of a tabletop on which we see pages of a shooting script); and
>>Godard and Gorin's infamous _Letter to Jane_ (another film of photos)'
>(327).
>>
>>Any response?
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[log in to unmask]
Department of Philosophy
University of Wisconsin - Madison
Current Address:
12 Graves Ave.
Northampton, MA 01060
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|