The photoplay; a psychological study (1916)

Page scan 00055 from The photoplay; a psychological study

Record Details:

Title:
The photoplay; a psychological study
Date:
1916
Publisher:
New York [etc.] D. Appleton and company
Volume:
The photoplay; a psychological study
Leaf #:
00055
Language:
English
Collection:
Books
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Cornell University Library
Sponsor:
MSN
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
July 19, 2022
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

THE PHOTOPLAY ings appear to the mind plastic and the mov- ing pictures flat? The psychology of this difference is easily misunderstood. Of course, when we are sitting in the picture palace we know that we see a flat screen and that the object which we see has only two dimensions, right-left, and up-down, but not the third dimension of depth, of distance toward us or away from us. It is flat like a picture and never plastic like a work of sculpture or ar- chitecture or like a stage. Yet this is knowl- edge and not immediate impression. We have no right whatever to say that the scenes which we see on the screen appear to us as flat pic- tures. We may become more strongly conscious of this difference between an object of our knowledge and an object of our impression, if we remember a well-known instrument, the stereoscope. The stereoscope, which was quite familiar to the parlor of a former gen- eration, consists of two prisms through which the two eyes look toward two photographic views of a landscape. But the two photo- graphic views are not identical. The land- scape is taken from two different points of view, once from the right and once from the 46