proofing my post: 'It's as if the lab *protects* the writer from philosophy.'
'*Now*, all these tests [. . .]" Bernie On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 12:13 PM Bernard Roddy <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Pip: > > The perceptual experiments you describe don't seem to me to be necessary. > We already have the moving image of cinema. What I have noticed, however, > is that there is an attraction to the various lab studies. And this will be > of particular interest for "experimental" animation. > > One of the things I am a little impatient with is this continual > observation that Delueze is somehow not saying anything about whatever we > want to identify as this "phi phenomenon." It's as if the lab protests the > writer from philosophy. All I have to do is open these first pages of > Deleuze to see that his thinking begins with broader questions than some > sort of film history. > > You write that "Deleuze rejects the notion that motion is an illusion > created from stills [. . .]." The very reliance on illusion, as far as I > can tell, has no relevance in what I understand of Deleuze. So, in a sense, > I can agree. But this point doesn't shed any light on what Deleuze thinks. > (I don't think A Thousand Plateaus is a reference.) > > No, all these details about tests with lights going on and off reminds me > of Bergson, who is also reading that kind of research, or what we would > today call cognitive science (only it's usually involving people who have > suffered injury of some kind and can thus provide a case study without any > ethical difficulty). > > Let's go to this Gary Beydler. I've never heard of him. But the > description lends itself to what goes for "experiment" in film. And that > would belong also to what we encounter in psychological research that > subscribes to the same philosophical orientation. That orientation, if I'm > not mistaken, is rejected by Deleuze. For one thing, it fails to recognize > the conception of movement and time that we find in Bergson. But we're all > pretty versed in these effects, and so (as I see it) we present these as > the philosophy of relevance. > > Deleuze isn't easy. But he's damn interesting, and this is in part because > he'll formulate all these notions of images to talk about changes over the > history of narrative cinema (he's selective, and says this history doesn't > include all the screen work we might be paying for). > > (And I signed on to open a thought about the avant-garde.) > > Bernie > > > > > > > - - - - - > > >
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
