تن یافتگی تماشاگر در فضای هاپتیکی فیلم

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشیار دانشکده هنرهای نمایشی و موسیقی، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 استادیار دانشکده هنرها و ادیان، دانشگاه هنر اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

3 استادیار دانشکده معماری، پردیس هنرهای زیبا، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

4 دانشجوی دکتری پژوهش هنر، دانشگاه هنر اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

چکیده

چکیده
در برابر تمرکز سینمای اولیه بر همذات­پنداری بدنی تماشاگر با فیلم، با تکامل زبان سینمایی و سلطه سیستم روایی، جریانی عمده به سوی همذات‌پنداری روایی شکل گرفت و آنچه که مرتبط با قلمرو بدن بود، به قلمرو ذهن منتقل شد. این انتقال به سلطه طولانی تئوری‌های زبان­شناختی و روان­شناختی فیلم انجامید. در دهه‌های هفتاد و هشتاد میلادی، رابطه آپاراتوس سینما با پرسپکتیو رنسانسی گفتمان اساسی تئوری فیلم را تشکیل داد و نظریه­پردازان به تحلیل رابطه تماشاگر و پرده، بر مبنای الگوی پرسپکتیوی پرداختند. اساس نظریه اپتیکی مبتنی بر فاصله­ای بود میان سوژه تماشا کننده و ابژه نگریسته شده، و این سیستم فراهم کننده شرایطی برای شکل­گیری الگوی اندیشیدن و تعمق­ با فاصلة متفکران غربی به نظم جهان گردید. پرسپکتیو رنسانسی با احیا نمودن الگوی فضای اپتیکی، تثبیت جایگاه سوژه، و مستحکم نمودن فاصله میان سوژه و ابژه، بار دیگر برتری بینایی را بر سایر حواس تثبیت نمود. این مقاله می‌کوشد این نکته را روشن سازد که در مقابل سلطه تئوری اپتیکی فیلم که موجودیت جسمانی و ابعاد حسانی تماشاگر را نادیده می‌گیرد، مناسب است تئوری بدن محور و هاپتیکی فیلم مد نظر قرار گیرد و تجربه سینمایی را نیز، تجربه‌ای مبتنی بر تن‌یافتگی تماشاگر در فضای فیلمی ‌تبیین نمود.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Audience Embodiment in the Haptical Film Space

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Bagher Ghahramani 1
  • Marzieh Piravi Vanak 2
  • Hamed Mazaherian 3
  • Alireza Sayyad 4
1 Associate Professor, School of Performing Arts, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Art, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, School of Architecture, College of Fine Arts, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
4 Ph.D. Student of Art Studies, Faculty of Art, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Abstract
Film theoreticians, in the early stages of practice, emphasized the corporeal characteristics of the medium and the relationship between cinema and the spectator’s senses. Besides, in the opposite direction to the early cinema concentration on audience bodily identification with the film, the evolution of cinematic language and the subsequent prevailing of a dominant narrative system, major streams were formed towards identification with narrative, and what was associated with the realm of the body was transported to the realm of the mind. This transition led to the long supremacy of linguistic and psychological based theories of film. In the decades of the seventies and eighties, the connection between cinema apparatus and the renaissance perspective ideas formed the fundamental discourse of film theories. Writers such as Baudry, Metz and Heath analyzed the liaison between the viewer and the screen based on the perspective model. Optical theory was based on a perceived distance between the subject as a seer and a corresponding object being seen and provided the necessary conditions for the formation of the pattern of western thinkers to ponder the world order from a distance. The emergence of perspective understanding in the renaissance period helped the revival of optical spatial pattern that in turn consolidated the position of the subject and strengthened the distance between subject and object. The central position of the spectator from a distance deciphering the perspective of the composition was emphasized. Once again, the dominance of vision over the other senses was reinforced. Moreover, Giuliana Bruno argues based on the meaning of the Greek orgin word (kinēma, kinēmat- 'movement', from kinein 'to move') for cinema, implying that these terms bring to mind motion. The Latin root of the word emotion is also from the same word and evidently suggests a moving force and historically has been marked by moving from one place to another. Bruno believes that motion causes emotion and emotion always contains a movement within. In this regard, film can be viewed as a vehicle for transporting movement. Motions in cinema (including camera movement, movement of bodies and objects, movement and changes of perspective) not only influence narrative time and space but also form movements within the spectator creating emotion and in this respect loosens the existing boundaries of the spheres depicted in the movies. It seems apparent that there have been attempts to return to the body-centered theories of early cinema, and to accentuate the sympathy between the viewer body and the cinematic image. In the other direction of the dominance of optical film theories that ignore corporeal-material existence of the audience members and their sensual dimensions, it is appropriate that the bodily and haptic film theory would be reconsidered. Thus, by lending from Merleau-Ponty idea of the embodied subject, the film experience could be defined based on the experience of the embodiment of the members of the audience in the film space. A film audience with their physical presence, project to the outside, within the film world and interact in creating a cinematic space, based on their lived experiences.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Keywords Renaissance Perspective
  • Haptical Cinema
  • the Viewer Body
  • the Embodied Subject
  • Film Space

مراجع

استم، رابرت(1389)، مقدمه ای بر نظریه فیلم، ترجمه: گروه مترجمان به کوشش احسان نوروزی، شرکت انتشارات سوره مهر، تهران. بنیامین، والتر(1390)، اثر هنری در عصر تولید مکانیکی، در اکران اندیشه: فصل هایی در فلسفه سینما، ترجمه پیام یزدانجو، نشر مرکز، تهران.
پیراوی ونک، مرضیه(1389)، پدیدار شناسی نزد مرلوپونتی، انتشارات پرسش، آبادان.
گاردنر، هلن(1389)، هنر در گذر زمان، ترجمه محمد تقی فرامرزی، موسسه انتشارات آگاه، تهران.
گشایش، فرهاد(1379)، تاریخ هنر ایران و جهان، انتشارات عفاف، تهران.
هیوارد، سوزان(1381)، مفاهیم کلیدی در مطالعات سینمایی، ترجمه فتاح محمدی، نشر هزاره سوم ، زنجان.
Alberti, Leon Battista (2010), Leon Battista Alberti: On painting: A New Translation and Critical Edition, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Aumont, Jacques (1992), Aesthetics of Film, University of Texas Press, Texas.
Barker, Jennifer M. (2009), The Tactile Eye: Touch and the Cinematic Experience, University of California Press, Berkeley. Benjamin, Walter (1996), Selected Writings: 1913-1926, edited by Marcus Bullock and Michael W.
Jennings, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Bordwell, David (2009), Sergei Eisenstein, in The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Film, edited by Paisley Livingston and Carl Plantinga, Routledge, London & New York.
Bruno, Giuliana (2002), Atlas of Emotion: Journeys in Art, Architecture, and Film, Verso, London & New York.
Burch, Noel (1990), Life to Those Shadows, translated by Ben Brewster, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Dalle Vacche, Angela (2003), The Visual Tturn: Classical Film Theory and Art History, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.
Descartes, René (1985), The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Cambridge University Press.
Deleuze, Gilles, & Guattari, Felix (2004), Thousand Plateaus, Bloomsbury Academic. Deleuze, Gilles (2005), Cinema II, Bloomsbury Academic.
Eisenstein, Sergei M. (1990), Piranesi, or the Fluidity of Forms, in The Sphere and the Labyrinth: Avant-gardes and Architecture from Piranesi to the 1970s, edited by Manfredo Tafutri, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Gunning, Tom (1990), Cinema of Attractions: Early Films, Its Spectator And the Avant-garde, in Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative, edited by Thomas Elsaesser and Adam Barker, BFI Pub, London.
Hannah, Dorita (2008), Event-space: Theater Architecture & the Historical Avant-garde, New York University.
Hansen, Miriam (2012), Cinema and Experience: Siegfried Kracauer, Walter Benjamin, and Theodor W.
Adorno, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Heath, Stephen (1981), Questions of Cinema, Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Jay, Martin (1993), Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-century French Thought, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Kracauer, Siegfried (1997), Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Lacan, Jacques (1978), The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis, Karnac Books.
Lant, Antonia (1995), Haptical Cinema, October, vol. 74, pp: 45-73. Marks, Laura U. (2000), The Skin of the Film: Intercultural Cinema, Embodiment, and the Senses, Duke University Press, Durham & London.
Marks, Laura U. (2002), Touch: Sensuous Theory and Multisensory Media, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Metz, Christian (1982), The Imaginary Signifier: Psychoanalysis and the Cinema, Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Michelson, Annette (2010), Bodies in Space: Film as Carnal Knowledge, in The Making of 2001: A Space Odyssey, edited by Stephanie Schwam, Random House Publishing Group, New York.
Pérez Gómez, Alberto, & Pelletier, Louise (1997), Architectural Representation and the Perspective Hinge, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Sobchack, Vivian Carol (1992), The Address of the Eye: A Phenomenology of Film Experience, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Sobchack, Vivian Carol (2004), Carnal Thoughts: Embodiment and Moving Image Culture, University of California Press, Berkeley.
Tafuri, Manfredo (1987), The Sphere and the Labyrinth: Avant-gardes and Architecture from Piranesi to the 1970s, MIT Press, Cambridge.
Williams, Linda (1991), Film Bodies: Gender, Genre, and Excess, Film Quarterly, 44(4), pp: 2-13.

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار