In writings which straddle the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Aloïs Riegl tells us that haptic sensation is inspired by tangible art objects such as reliefs, monuments, paintings, statues and buildings. The potential tactility of these objects’ visual detailing imposes itself upon the beholder’s eye to such an extent that he or she feels compelled to touch the object.
Though Laura U. Marks admits to ‘changing Riegl’s definition of the haptic somewhat’,1 her twenty-first century recasting of haptic perception as a form of cinematic haptic visuality remains dependent upon the appeal of proximal tactility. However, this appeal is incited by a virtual experience of tactile proximity; Marksian haptic visuality arises from the filmic projection and enlargement of materially distant surfaces. This projection magnifies our awareness of those surfaces’ tactile details and makes us want to touch them. The probable geographical and temporal distance of these surfaces means that the projected surfaces are likely to be impossible for us to touch or to see in the way that the cinematic image before us suggests. The camera may magnify otherwise imperceptible visual details greatly or diminish the appearance of others which would be much more noticeable if the filmed surfaces were placed before us to inspect haptically. Use of camera effects such as focus zooming and hazing or (digital) film manipulation in postproduction renders the moving pictures before our eyes even further removed from the surfaces that the camera lens dwelt upon initially. Nevertheless, the...
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.