Content area
Full Text
Several years ago we wrote an article entitled "The Myth of Persistence of Vision," which appeared in the Journal of the University Film Association in the fall of 1978 (Anderson and Fisher). In it we offered a considerable volume of evidence that the concept "persistence of vision" was an inaccurate and inadequate explanation for the apparent motion found in a motion picture. At the time we thought the article had laid the matter to rest. We had pronounced persistence of vision dead. And, frankly, we expected never to hear the term again, other than in a historical context.
Now, more than 15 years later, we are drawn once more to the myth of persistence of vision. Why? Because it is still with us. We read a student paper, and we cringe. We attend the lecture of a seasoned film scholar, and we cringe. We cringe not only because they have chosen to perpetuate the notion of persistence of vision but because they apparently, even at this late date, do not understand its implications. By this time most film scholars seem to have heard that the term "persistence of vision" is inadequate. Some "have mistakenly substituted the generally misunderstood term "phi phenomenon" as an explanation of filmic motion, but many still cling to the myth.1 Why are film people so reluctant to let go of this notion?
Those engaged in film study cling to persistence of vision because they need it. For film scholars, it is our myth of creation. It answers our central question of origin: Why, when we look at a succession of still images on the film screen or TV set, are we able to see a continuous moving image? We answer, "Persistence of vision." Persistence of vision is the name given to the miracle by which the stillsilver halide dust of photography is transformed into palpable, living motion.
And just as the story of Adam and Eve explains not only the mechanism by which people originated and reproduced but also the relationship of human beings to God, the myth of creation for the motion picture explains not only the mechanism for the origin of motion but the relationship of the film to the viewer. The viewer implied by the Myth of...