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)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|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.
Martin Seel (2008). Realism and Anti-Realism in Film Theory. Critical Horizons 9 (2):157-175.
Robert Hopkins (2010). Moving Because Pictures? Illusion and the Emotional Power of Film. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 34 (1):200-218.
Richard Allen (1995). Projecting Illusion: Film Spectatorship and the Impression of Reality. Cambridge University Press.
Elspeth Kydd (2011). The Critical Practice of Film: An Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.
I. C. Jarvie (1987). Philosophy of the Film: Epistemology, Ontology, Aesthetics. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Dudley Andrew (1984). Concepts in Film Theory. Oxford University Press.
Gaston Roberge (1992). The Ways of Film Studies: Film Theory & the Interpretation of Films. Ajanta Publications.
Gregory Currie (1995). Image and Mind: Film, Philosophy and Cognitive Science. Cambridge University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads37 ( #36,918 of 722,700 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #25,873 of 722,700 )
How can I increase my downloads?