British Journal of Aesthetics 42 (3):243-258 (2002)
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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Seeing Motion and Apparent Motion.Christoph Hoerl - 2015 - European Journal of Philosophy 23 (3):676-702.
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.
Projecting a Camera : Language-Games in Film Theory.Edward Branigan - 2006 - Routledge.
The Ways of Film Studies: Film Theory & the Interpretation of Films.Gaston Roberge - 1992 - Ajanta Publications.
Philosophy of the Film: Epistemology, Ontology, Aesthetics.I. C. Jarvie - 1987 - Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Projecting Illusion: Film Spectatorship and the Impression of Reality.Richard Allen - 1995 - Cambridge University Press.
Moving Because Pictures? Illusion and the Emotional Power of Film.Robert Hopkins - 2010 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 34 (1):200-218.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads83 ( #62,020 of 2,158,298 )
Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #29,933 of 2,158,298 )
How can I increase my downloads?