British Journal of Aesthetics 42 (3):243-258 (2002)
|Abstract||Gregory Currie, arguing against recent psychoanalytic and semiotic film theory, has defended various realist theses about film. The strongest of these is that ‘weak illusionism’—the view that the motion of film images is an illusion—is false. That is, Currie believes film images really do move. In this paper I defend the common-sense position of weak illusionism, firstly by showing that Currie underestimates the power of some arguments for it, especially one based on the mechanics of projection, and secondly by showing that film images exhibit neither garden-variety motion, nor a special response-dependent kind.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jessica Green (2010). Understanding the Score: Film Music Communicating to and Influencing the Audience. Journal of Aesthetic Education 44 (4):81-94.
Gaston Roberge (1992). The Ways of Film Studies: Film Theory & the Interpretation of Films. Ajanta Publications.
Dudley Andrew (1984). Concepts in Film Theory. Oxford University Press.
I. C. Jarvie (1987). Philosophy of the Film: Epistemology, Ontology, Aesthetics. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Elspeth Kydd (2011). The Critical Practice of Film: An Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.
Richard Allen (1995). Projecting Illusion: Film Spectatorship and the Impression of Reality. Cambridge University Press.
Robert Hopkins (2010). Moving Because Pictures? Illusion and the Emotional Power of Film. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 34 (1):200-218.
Martin Seel (2008). Realism and Anti-Realism in Film Theory. Critical Horizons 9 (2):157-175.
Gregory Currie (1995). Image and Mind: Film, Philosophy and Cognitive Science. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads34 ( #35,368 of 549,118 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,118 )
How can I increase my downloads?