The photoplay; a psychological study (1916)

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 #:
000145
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 of the camera the whole scenery echoes them. Even in the most objective factor of the mind, the perception, we find this peculiar oscil- lation. "We perceive the movement; and yet we perceive it as something which has not its independent character as an outer world proc- ess, because our mind has built it up from single pictures rapidly following one another. We perceive things in their plastic depth; and yet again the depth is not that of the out- er world. We are aware of its unreality and of the pictorial flatness of the impressions. In every one of these features the contrast to the mental impressions from the real stage is obvious. There in the theater we know at every moment that we see real plastic men before us, that they are really in motion when they walk and talk and that, on the other hand, it is our own doing and not a part of the play when our attention turns to this or that detail, when our memory brings back events of the past, when our imagination sur- rounds them with fancies and emotions. And here, it seems, we have a definite starting point for an esthetic comparison. If we raise the unavoidable question—^how does the pho- toplay compare with the drama?—^we seem to 136