Sculpting in time: temporally inflected experience of cinema

In Jerome Pelletier & Albert Voltolini (eds.), The Pleasure of Pictures: Pictorial Experience and Aesthetic Appreciation. Routledge. pp. 201-223 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

We engage with all representational pictures by seeing things in them. Seeing-in is a distinctive form of visual experience, one in which we are aware of both the marks, projected lights, or whatever that make up the picture (its Design) and what the picture represents (Scene). Some seeing-in is inflected: what we then see in the picture is a scene the properties of which make essential reference to Design. Since cinema involves moving pictures, it too supports seeing-in. But can that seeing-in be inflected? Film is a relatively transparent pictorial medium: properties of the representation other than its content have a relatively low profile in our experience of it. This prevents film from exhibiting the sorts of inflection common in other pictorial media. However, film is certainly not completely transparent. Among the Design properties of which we are aware are temporal properties of the film. Is our experience of cinema inflected by these properties? And, if so, is this one source of the feature some take to constitute cinema’s distinctiveness as an artform, the special relation in which it stands to time? I argue that the answer to both these questions is Yes.

Links

PhilArchive

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Pictorial Aesthetics and Two Kinds of Inflected Seeing-In.Giulia Martina - 2016 - Estetika: The European Journal of Aesthetics 53 (1):74-92.
Inflected Pictorial Experience: Its Treatment and Significance.Robert Hopkins - 2010 - In Catharine Abell & Katerina Bantinaki (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives on Depiction. Oxford University Press. pp. 151.
Inflected and uninflected perception of pictures.Bence Nanay - 2010 - In Catharine Abell & Katerina Bantinaki (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives on Depiction. Oxford University Press.
Why, as responsible for figurativity, seeing-in can only be inflected seeing-in.Alberto Voltolini - 2015 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 14 (3):651-667.
The Moving Image.Nick Wiltsher & Aaron Meskin - 2019 - In Noël Carroll, Laura T. Di Summa & Shawn Loht (eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of the Philosophy of Film and Motion Pictures. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. pp. 49-69.
Moving because Pictures? Illusion and the Emotional Power of Film.Robert Hopkins - 2010 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 34 (1):200-218.
Cinema as a representational art.Catharine Abell - 2010 - British Journal of Aesthetics 50 (3):273-286.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-05-26

Downloads
310 (#66,452)

6 months
141 (#25,938)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Robert Hopkins
New York University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Picture, Image and Experience: A Philosophical Inquiry.Robert Hopkins - 1998 - New York: Cambridge University Press.
Inflected Pictorial Experience: Its Treatment and Significance.Robert Hopkins - 2010 - In Catharine Abell & Katerina Bantinaki (eds.), Philosophical Perspectives on Depiction. Oxford University Press. pp. 151.
What do we see in film?Robert Hopkins - 2008 - Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 66 (2):149–159.
Film as Art, 50th Anniversary Printing.Rudolf Arnheim - 1957 - University of California Press.

View all 8 references / Add more references