Experiment with video and memory of time

As mentioned in my earlier blog post on video art , early artist explored video as time elapse process that influences the way we perceive and memorize images.

I always was wondering why when watching a sequence of a film, especially with human faces, my memory of it seems different to my image perception when I just take a snapshot as one still image (screen shot). I was curious to explore this with a quick and dirty experiment hoping that contrasting both will show my sensation.

Here a short sequence from a Columbo YouTube video and a screenshot from that sequence.

  • The moving, looped sequence:

Best to watch first the looped squence, memorize and then compare with below still image

 

    • The still image (screen shot)

https://ocauvc.stefanschaffeld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/IMG_2201.jpg

 

 

Conclusion:

I am not sure whether this example really shows what I feel at times. Perhaps more to explore with ‘life’ moving images.

 


Amendment 21 Nov 2017: Read about Robert Breer experiments of combined painting, drawing and moving images, at times rather a ‘flipbook’ format (Form Phases I – IV) or as a new optical experience of looped 10 seconds sequence consisting of 240 invidual distinct abstract frames (Image by Images, 1954). What I find an astonishing aspect is Breer’s own desciption the the latter as having a new experience of a dense vibration resembling a still image, moving to quickly turns into stillness. I am wondering thus about the question of moving speed versus perception of moving or stillness.

  2 comments for “Experiment with video and memory of time

  1. November 24, 2017 at 10:42 am

    Interesting. The film gives me a sensation of distress and acute anxiety (I even feel my own heath beat increasing as I watch). The picture on the other hand appears relaxed, could even be the sassy look of a photomodel, or perhaps shy downcast eyes (reading perhaps more dependent on the viewer?). Is the action important as a generator of feelings? I presume the human race has evolved reading the movements off the faces of each other. The ‘still’ is some less visceral and more recent phenomenon – I wonder if it speaks more to the intellect?

    • Stefan
      November 24, 2017 at 11:08 am

      Thanks for bringing in a different perspective related to moving versus still. Evoking different emotional responses. Find this quite fascinating. I can somehow relate this to an earlier research post (23 July) on Masahiro Mori and his conception of ‘The Uncanny Valley’, relating to robots, AI and the difference in evoking emotional response and affinity. Moving objects and human likeness typically evoke higher affinity, whereas objects in between moving and still (dead) are somehow going through ‘the uncanny valley’. E.g prosthetic hand is inside the valley, I think relates to the fact that when you shake hands and suddenly recognize it is artificial. Not sure how this relates to your response, but I can that between moving and still there is something that evokes different responses in humans. Well,that’s why we are human

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: