HAPTIC CINEMA

Curated by Emma Pillsbury

What does ‘Haptic’ mean?

adjective:

Relating to the sense of touch, in particular relating to the perception and manipulation of

objects using the senses of touch and proprioception. (perception or awareness of the position

and movement of the body).

• Haptic communication, the means by which people and other animals

communicate via touching
• Haptic perception, the process of recognizing objects through touch
• Haptic technology, technology that interfaces with the user through the
sense of touch

noun:

The use of technology that stimulates the senses of touch and motion, especially to

reproduce in remote operation or computer simulation the sensations that would be felt by a user

interacting directly with physical objects.

 Haptic communication and haptic perception are all about utilizing the sense of touch,

while haptic technology is trying to make up for its absence.

HAPTIC VISUALITY/
CINEMA
The theory of “haptic visuality” (circa Laura Marks, The Skin of Film) —a visuality that

functions like the sense of touch by triggering physical memories of smell, sound, touch, and

taste—to explain the newfound ways in which intercultural cinema engages the viewer bodily to

convey cultural experience and memory.

EXAMPLES IN ART

(Painting 1946). (Figure in a Landscape)

Francis Bacon was an Irish-born British figurative painter known for his emotionally charged

raw imagery. (Early 1900’s) His paintings were regarded of the first ‘known’ examples of haptic

visualities in art.

To Connect to film:

“the image allows viewers to experience cinema as a physical and multi-sensory embodiment of
culture, not just as a visual representation of experience.” - Laura Marks, The Skin of Film

This is interesting to think about because it relies on the viewer to come up with these

experiences rather than the creator. The artist can try as hard as they may to create this and get

nothing, or they could barely try and get so many sensory receptions.

NEUROSCIENCE VS PHILOSOPHY
 René Descartes, in his epoch-making Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), had

argued that minds and bodies are two distinct kinds of being or substance with two distinct kinds

of attributes or modes: bodies are characterized by spatiotemporal physical properties, while

minds are characterized by properties of thinking (including seeing, feeling, etc.). Centuries later,

phenomenology would find, with Brentano and Husserl, that mental acts are characterized by

consciousness and intentionality, while natural science would find that physical systems are

characterized by mass and force, ultimately by gravitational, electromagnetic, and quantum

fields. Where do we find consciousness and intentionality in the quantum-electromagnetic-

gravitational field that, by hypothesis, orders everything in the natural world in which we humans

and our minds exist? That is the mind-body problem today. In short, phenomenology by any

other name lies at the heart of the contemporary mind-body problem.

Habitual memory, is at the service of every day, pragmatic needs and is recalled by what

we see and need during the day to get through our needs. We see an orange traffic light and we

know to slow down. As drivers, we hear an ambulance and we know to move to the side of the

road. These are memories recalled by what we see and hear, we react to them instinctively, as in

a brain recall. Pure memory comes to us in less structured, non-habitualized forms (sleeping,

daydreaming, when our mind makes lateral connections that recall something entirely unrelated

to our present situation, etc.). After visual input hits the retina, the information flows into

the brain, where information such as shape, color, and orientation is processed.

Habitual memory perception is conditioned by what is visible, opposed to pure memory that

may come to us by other non-visual triggers.

HAPTIC VISTUALITY VS. OPTICAL VISUALITY

 Haptic visuality is distinguished from optical visuality, which sees things from enough

distance to perceive them as distinct forms in deep space: in other words, how we usually

conceive of vision. Optical visuality depends on separation between the viewing subject and the

object. Haptic looking tends to move over the surface of its object rather than plunge into

illusionistic depth, not to distinguish form so much as to discern texture. It is more inclined to

move than to focus, more inclined to graze than to gaze.

What can it look like? How do I recreate it?

Haptic films often have close ups, blurred images, so the spectator has to put his senses

at work to experience what is happening in the film. Haptic visuality can contain some of the

following formal and textual qualities: grainy, unclear images; sensuous imagery that evokes

memory of the senses (i.e. water, nature); the depiction of characters in acute states of sensory

activity (smelling, sniffing, tasting, etc.); close-to-the-body camera positions and panning across

the surface of objects; changes in focus, under- and overexposure, decaying film and video

imagery; optical printing; scratching on the emulsion; densely textured images, effects and

formats such as Pixelvision [...]; and alternating between film/video.

To push this even further, I feel as though my understanding of what ‘haptic cinema’ is oe

can be changes often. I can be watching a ‘mainstream’ film and there are moments when I feel it

takes me out of just a normal ‘viewing’ experience and puts me into a haptic one. Same thing

goes for more Art House films. It is a simple idea that stretches across many platforms; film,

poetry, art, literature, etc. while being both inclusive and expansive. What does it mean to have a
visual experience create another sensory experience? Take for example, Francis Bacon’s

Paintings. A lot of people seem to have a similar phenomenon of sensing rather than feeling. But

an Edward Hopper painting to me makes me feel rather than sense. But for some, his

atmospheres may create an instant smell or taste for someone when they look at them. I think

that Haptic visuality is very vague and is not something that will ever be able to be captured the

way some people try to with things like 4D movies. Perhaps the closest thing we have right now

are installations - but are those really a ‘cinematic’ experience?

The haptic image is in a sense, ‘less complete’, requiring the viewer to contemplate the

image as a material presence rather than an easily identifiable representational cog in a narrative

wheel. When our eyes move across a richly textured surface, occasionally pausing but not really

focusing, making us wonder what we are actually seeing, they are functioning like organs of

touch. The brain is cross wired for sensory associations , always looking to connect to

understand. Is it the mind that is creating an experience or is it the brain? Is it a more emotional

experience? Fight or flight? The brain is processing the information you’re seeing and turning it

into a reaction. How come sometimes a film will make one person squeamish while make

another laugh in delight at the cool effects?

LIST OF FILMS

Think about how these films are related to your sensory memories.

Imagining things that haven’t happened to you but scare or disgust you.

For example Saw or seeing a buzzing bee hive.

GLASS JAW—MICHAEL O’REILLY
https://vimeo.com/21537966

• Combines sonic, texts, and visuals to create a very haptic experience

Institute Benjamenta or This Dream People Call Human

Life I (2 minutes in)

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xgp7hc

• Lack of sound elements when they should be there forces the audience to make up their own

sounds, perhaps creating a more immersive experience for the viewer by forcing them to

create the world themselves (one side of haptic cinema)

‘Experimental Animation’

https://vimeo.com/3976305

• Visual textures

Hard to be a God Vs Son of Saul

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11sMDQIgggA
(hard to be a god)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9-bRxSVuzE
(Son of Saul)

• Visual Vs Sonic
- The Phenomenology of Trauma. Sound and Haptic Sensuality in Son of

Saul

FINAL THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS

Think about a time a film or image forced a connection in your brain. Was that something you

liked? Could it be pushed further? Does this change the way you look at film? Can all films be

viewed with a multi sensory viewing in mind?

For me, it puts into question cinema’s illusion of representing reality. Everything we do is based

off of memory.

Other things to look up:

Fantastic fungi

Sleep, interrupted