British Journal of Aesthetics 42 (3):243-258 (2002)
AbstractGregory 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.
Similar books and articles
Understanding the Score: Film Music Communicating to and Influencing the Audience.Jessica Green - 2010 - Journal of Aesthetic Education 44 (4):81-94.
Moving Because Pictures? Illusion and the Emotional Power of Film.Robert Hopkins - 2010 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 34 (1):200-218.
Projecting Illusion: Film Spectatorship and the Impression of Reality.Richard Allen - 1995 - Cambridge University Press.
Philosophy of the Film: Epistemology, Ontology, Aesthetics.Ian Charles Jarvie - 1987 - Routledge & Kegan Paul.
The Ways of Film Studies: Film Theory & the Interpretation of Films.Gaston Roberge - 1992 - Ajanta Publications.
Projecting a Camera : Language-Games in Film Theory.Edward Branigan - 2006 - Routledge.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Seeing Motion and Apparent Motion.Christoph Hoerl - 2015 - European Journal of Philosophy 23 (3):676-702.
Similarity and Enjoyment: Predicting Continuation for Women in Philosophy.Heather Demarest, Robertson Seth, Haggard Megan, Martin-Seaver Madeline & Bickel Jewelle - 2017 - Analysis 77 (3):525-541.
Does the Debate About Cinematic Motion Rest on a Mistake?Rafael De Clercq - 2017 - Analysis 77 (3):519-525.