Comments on: 30 Days of Cinétrance http://savageminds.org/2006/06/18/30-days-of-cinetrance/ Notes and Queries in Anthropology — A Group Blog Sat, 20 Mar 2010 16:28:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Keywords » Over at Savage Minds http://savageminds.org/2006/06/18/30-days-of-cinetrance/comment-page-1/#comment-10827 Keywords » Over at Savage Minds Thu, 22 Jun 2006 07:15:04 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/18/30-days-of-cinetrance/#comment-10827 [...] 30 Days of Cinétrance [...] [...] 30 Days of Cinétrance [...]

]]> By: Rex http://savageminds.org/2006/06/18/30-days-of-cinetrance/comment-page-1/#comment-10663 Rex Tue, 20 Jun 2006 05:58:00 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/18/30-days-of-cinetrance/#comment-10663 Unfortunately the most intelligent thing that I could thing of to say about this very intelligent post is that I heard recently that Bob Mould's day job is now writing for professional wrestling. Is that awesome or what? Unfortunately the most intelligent thing that I could thing of to say about this very intelligent post is that I heard recently that Bob Mould’s day job is now writing for professional wrestling. Is that awesome or what?

]]> By: Doyle Saylor http://savageminds.org/2006/06/18/30-days-of-cinetrance/comment-page-1/#comment-10558 Doyle Saylor Mon, 19 Jun 2006 14:58:22 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/18/30-days-of-cinetrance/#comment-10558 Hello Kerim, I would view this area from the point of view of how to discern in visual content the construction. For example, beginning the visual anthro course with a simple question for students, what is seeing motion and what is seeing stillness? Motion pictures do not function like the visual system does. (persistence of vision theory is not at all like vision) So students need a lesson in understanding why language reflects a noun verb structure that vision imposes. Vision splits apart the one from the other in distinct paths. If you need references I can contribute a variety of on line sources and texts. Most movies are presented as linear un-editable strings of information. So they aren't interactive in the sense that video games are meant to be. The editor can interact with the content of a movie they are making. But in an anthropoligical sense in the field people use their eyes differently or have a different goal for seeing reality than an editor does with editing. The phrase one-to-many implies that no one expects to talk back (edit the content of a movie interactively with the author) to the movie maker. Therefore a whole list of technics are built into a movie to meet a challenge about the intelligibility of a movie. Intelligibility refers to the task to make something maximally intelligible above and beyond normal discourse so that the listener who can't ask what something means gets it the first time. One can go into the world and interact with objects in the world. Play with them, use them as tools. A movie cannot examine the world like that. Rather it must as much as possible intelligibly express a language like expression. thanks, Doyle Saylor Hello Kerim,
I would view this area from the point of view of how to discern in visual content the construction. For example, beginning the visual anthro course with a simple question for students, what is seeing motion and what is seeing stillness? Motion pictures do not function like the visual system does. (persistence of vision theory is not at all like vision) So students need a lesson in understanding why language reflects a noun verb structure that vision imposes. Vision splits apart the one from the other in distinct paths. If you need references I can contribute a variety of on line sources and texts.

Most movies are presented as linear un-editable strings of information. So they aren’t interactive in the sense that video games are meant to be. The editor can interact with the content of a movie they are making. But in an anthropoligical sense in the field people use their eyes differently or have a different goal for seeing reality than an editor does with editing. The phrase one-to-many implies that no one expects to talk back (edit the content of a movie interactively with the author) to the movie maker. Therefore a whole list of technics are built into a movie to meet a challenge about the intelligibility of a movie. Intelligibility refers to the task to make something maximally intelligible above and beyond normal discourse so that the listener who can’t ask what something means gets it the first time. One can go into the world and interact with objects in the world. Play with them, use them as tools. A movie cannot examine the world like that. Rather it must as much as possible intelligibly express a language like expression.
thanks,
Doyle Saylor

]]> By: ckelty http://savageminds.org/2006/06/18/30-days-of-cinetrance/comment-page-1/#comment-10496 ckelty Mon, 19 Jun 2006 01:45:30 +0000 http://savageminds.org/2006/06/18/30-days-of-cinetrance/#comment-10496 thank you kerim. I feel like I have been performing this blog post for people for years now, whenever I get going on reality TV and stanley milgram, but without the links or the background. this is worth an article... at least. thank you kerim. I feel like I have been performing this blog post for people for years now, whenever I get going on reality TV and stanley milgram, but without the links or the background. this is worth an article… at least.

]]>