Judy,
I have actually heard that the reason TV is so addictive is precisely
because it make the brain work to fill the gaps. So we constantly have
to finish the "unfinished" images and that makes us "spin" the brain. I
think that McLuhan would argue that analog (film, picture) would not be
so addictive, because we can easily detach from a passive medium.
What do you think?
Ana
Judy Diamondstone wrote:
>A relative of mine in the motion picture industry wants to know of anyone
>who has done or is interested in doing work comparing the cognitive --
>consequences? of viewing digitalized vs analog film, specifically narrative
>films (not sports, e.g.). The industry is currently overhauling its
>infrastructure, & Steven wants to argue against the assumption that
>"sharper, steadier, cheaper" is necessarily better -- from what I
>understand, he sees some risk in further diminishing the role of the
>consumer as maker of meaning -- that is, the digitalized format fills in yet
>more gaps & thus supports more passivity.
>
>He is speaking for some conglomerate of organizations, including the
>Technology Committee of American Society of Cinematographers, Academy of
>Motion Picures of Arts and Sciences, among multiple others, so if anyone
>knows of anyone in the field who would like to take on another interesting
>project, please refer them to me off list
>jdiamondstone@clarku.edu
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:42:57 PST