{"id":1212,"date":"2021-11-28T12:20:07","date_gmt":"2021-11-28T12:20:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ashareh.fit\/?p=1212"},"modified":"2022-01-21T06:55:01","modified_gmt":"2022-01-21T06:55:01","slug":"day-28","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lala3xl.com\/index.php\/2021\/11\/28\/day-28\/","title":{"rendered":"Day 28:"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The conversations about pink and pink clothing are really interesting. It\u2019s juvenile, it’s girly, it\u2019s saucy. It\u2019s ditsy, it\u2019s dirty, it\u2019s not for people who want to be taken seriously. It\u2019s bullshit. The values we assign to colour is completely cultural in influenced by the mood of the moment. Today pink means slutty tomorrow virgin. Such arbitrary ideas about outfits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

What My Fingers Knew: The Cinesthetic Subject, or Vision in the Flesh<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

My body is not only an object among all objects, . . . but an object which is sensitiveto all the rest, which reverberates to all sounds, vibrates to all colours, and provides words with their primordial significance through the way in which it receives them.<\/p>Maurice merleau-ponty, Phenomenology of Perception<\/cite><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Sobchack, in her essay, begins by acknowledging that while film reviews see film as a bodily experience, scholars often do not.\u00a0 Movies\u00a0seem to have the ability to create a sensorial experience that is a sort of digital aura\u00a0that only exists in the\u00a0combination of\u00a0imagery, words\u00a0and music on the same hierarchical level.\u00a0The goal isn\u2019t just to tell a story visually anymore but to bring the feelings of the\u00a0movie\u00a0to life and create a unique visual-sensorial-tactile synesthesia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our bodily response is unclear, however \u2013 \u201cour lack of ability to explain its somatism as anything more than \u2018mere\u2019 psychological reflex or to admit its meaning as anything more than metaphorical description\u201d Sensual description in film criticism is considered \u201cexcess\u201d.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Sobchack references the work of Walter Benjamin. In his famous \u201cThe Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,\u201d\u00a0he \u201cspeaks of cinematic intelligibility in terms of \u2018tactile appropriation\u2019 and elsewhere he speaks to the viewer\u2019s \u2018mimetic faculty,\u2019 a sensuous and bodily form of perception\u201d.\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cContemporary film theory has had major difficulties in comprehending how it is possible for human bodies to be, in fact, really \u2018touched\u2019 and \u2018moved\u2019 by the movies\u201d.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFilm experience is meaningful not to the side of our bodies but because of our bodies. Which is to say that movies provoke in us the \u2018carnal thoughts\u2019 that ground and inform more conscious analysis\u201d.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\u201cMeaning, and where it is made, does not have a discrete origin in either spectators\u2019 bodies or cinematic representation but emerges in their conjunction. We might name this subversive body in film experience the cinesthetic subject \u2013 a neologism that derives not only from cinema but\u2026 synaesthesia and coenaesthesia\u201d <\/p><\/blockquote><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u201cA phenomenology of the cinesthetic subject having and making sense of the movies reveals to us the chiasmatic function of the lived body\u2013as both carnal and conscious [\u2026] \u2013and how it is we can apprehend the sense of the screen both figurally and literally. [\u2026] [T]he film experience [\u2026] mobilizes, differentiates, and yet unites lived bodies and language, and foregrounds the reciprocity and reversibility of sensible matter and sensual meaning. Our fingers, our skin and nose and lips and tongue and stomach and all the other parts of us know what we see in the film experience. As cinesthetic subjects, then, we possess an embodied intelligence that both opens our eyes far beyond their discrete capacity for vision, opens the film far beyond its visible containment by the screen, and opens language to a reflective knowledge of its specific carnal origins and limits. This is what my fingers know at the movies.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n