Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:05:20.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Einfühlung and Abstraction in the Moving Image: Historical and Contemporary Reflections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2012

Robin Curtis
Robin Curtis*
Affiliation:
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Argument

Despite the fact that “empathy” is often simply used as a translation of Einfühlung, the two terms have distinct meanings and distinct disciplinary affiliations. This text considers the manner in which the moving image (whether within a film, video, or art installation) invites spatial forms of engagement akin to those described both by historical accounts of Einfühlung, a form of engagement that pertains not only to the activities of humans represented within images, but also to the aesthetic qualities of images in a more abstract sense and to the forms to be found there.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 25 , Issue 3: The Varieties of Empathy in Science, Art, and History , September 2012 , pp. 425 - 446
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bruun Vaage, Margrethe. 2007. “Empathie. Zur episodischen Struktur der Teilhabe am Spielfilm.” Translated by Wächter, Kirsten. montage/AV 16 (1):101–120.Google Scholar
Currie, Gregory. 1995. Image and Mind. Film, Philosophy and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, Robin. 2006. Conscientious Viscerality: The Autobiographical Stance in German Film and Video. Berlin: Gebrüder Mann Verlag/Edition Imorde.Google Scholar
Curtis, Robin. 2008. “Immersion und Einfühlung: Zwischen Repräsentalität und Materialität bewegter Bilder.” montage/AV 17 (2):89–108.Google Scholar
Curtis, Scott. 2009. “Einfühlung und die frühe deutsche Filmtheorie.” Translated by Kast, Franziska & Imorde, Joseph. In Einfühlung. Zu Geschichte und Gegenwart eines ästhetischen Konzepts, edited by Curtis, Robin and Koch, Gertrud, 79–104. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Aloia, Adriano. 2010. “Edith Stein geht ins Kino: Empathie als Filmtheorie.” Translated by Schwab, Herbert. montage/AV 19 (1):80–100.Google Scholar
Grau, Oliver. 2003. Virtual Art: From Illusion to Immersion. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Griffiths, Alison. 2007. Shivers Down Your Spine: Cinema, Museums, and the Immersive View. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Grodal, Thorben. 1997. Moving Pictures. A New Theory of Film Genres, Feelings, and Cognition. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Herder, Johann Gottfried. [1774] 1994. Auch eine Philosophie der Geschichte zur Bildung der Menschheit. In Schriften zu Philosophie, Literatur, Kunst und Altertum 1774–1787, edited by Jürgen Brummack and Martin Bollacher = vol. 4 of Werke in zehn Bänden. Frankfurt am Main: Deutscher Klassiker Verlag.Google Scholar
Kohler, Ivo. 1965. Handbuch der Psychologie in 12 Bänden. 1st Volume. Allgemeine Psychologie. Der Aufbabu des Erkennens, 1. Half Volume: Wahrnehmung und Bewußtsein. Edited by Metzger, Wolfgang. Göttingen: Verlag für Psychologie.Google Scholar
Koss, Juliet. 2006. “On the Limits of Empathy.” Art Bulletin 88 (1):139–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koss, Juliet. 2009. “Über die Grenzen der Einfühlung.” Translated by Kast, Franziska and Imorde, Joseph. In Einfühlung. Zu Geschichte und Gegenwart eines ästhetischen Konzepts, edited by Curtis, Robin and Koch, Gertrud, 105–126. München: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Koss, Juliet. 2010. Modernism after Wagner. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Kracauer, Siegfried. [1947] 1974. From Caligari to Hitler. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kracauer, Siegfried. [1960] 1997. “Preface.” In Theory of Film. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kracauer, Siegfried. 1995. The Mass Ornament: Weimar Essays. Edited and Translated by Levin, Thomas Y.. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Leutwyler, Kristin. 2000. “Tetris Dreams: How and when people see pieces from the computer game in their sleep tells of the role dreaming plays in learning.” Scientific American, October 16. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=tetris-dreams (last accessed 10 February 2011).Google Scholar
Lipps, Theodor. 1903a. Grundlegung der Ästhetik, first part. Hamburg: Leopold Voss.Google Scholar
Lipps, Theodor. 1903b. Leitfaden der Psychologie, 2nd ed.Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.Google Scholar
Lipps, Theodor. 1906. “Einfühlung und ästhetischer Genuß.” Die Zukunft 54:100–14.Google Scholar
Lipps, Theodor. [1897] 1966. Raumästhetik und geometrisch-optische Täuschungen. Amsterdam: E. J. Bonset.Google Scholar
Lotze, Rudolf. [1885] 2001. Mikrokosmus. Ideen zur Naturgeschichte und Geschichte der Menschheit, vol. 2, Elibron Classics (facsimile reprint of the 1885 edition by Leipzig, S. Hirzel, 1858).Google Scholar
Mallgrave, Harry F. and Ikonomou, Eleftherios. 1994. Empathy, Form, and Space: Problems in German Aesthetics. Santa Monica: Getty Publications Program.Google Scholar
Manovich, Lev. 2001. The Language of New Media. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Moholy, Lucia. 1972. Marginalien zu Moholy-Nagy: Dokumentarische Ungereimtheiten. Krefeld: Scherpe Verlag.Google Scholar
Moholy-Nagy, László. [1938] 2005. The New Vision: Fundamentals of Bauhaus Design, Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture. Translated by Hoffman, Daphne. Mineola: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Müller-Tamm, Jutta. 2005. Abstraktion als Einfühlung. Freiburg im Breisgau: Rombach Litterae.Google Scholar
Novalis, [Georg Philipp Friedrich Freiherr von Hardenberg]. [1802] 1837. “Die Lehrlinge zu Sais.” In Schriften. Edited by Tieck, Ludwig, Schlegel, Friedrich von, Bülow, Karl Eduard von, and Tieck, Johann Ludwig, 5th edn. Berlin: Georg Reimer.Google Scholar
Panofsky, Erwin. 1937. “Style and Medium in the Moving Pictures.” Transition 26:124–125.Google Scholar
Papoulias, Constantina and Callard, Felicity. 2010. “Biology's Gift: Interrogating the Turn to Affect.” Body and Society 16:29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Murray. 1995. Engaging Characters. Fiction, Emotion, and the Cinema. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stern, Daniel N. 1985. The Interpersonal World of the Infant: A View from Psychoanalysis and Developmental Psychology. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Stickgold, Robert, Malia, April, Maguire, Denise, Roddenberry, David, and O'Connor, Margaret. 2000. “Replaying the game: Hypnagogic images in normals and amnesics.” Science 290:350–353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stueber, Karsten R. 2006. Rediscovering Empathy. Agency, Folk Psychology, and the Human Sciences. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tan, Ed S. 1996. Emotion and the Structure of Narrative Film: Film as an Emotion Machine. Mahway NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Titchener, Edward. 1909. Lectures on the Experimental Psychology of the Thought-Processes. New York: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaage, Margrethe Bruun. 2007. “Empathie. Zur episodischen Struktur der Teilhabe am Spielfilm.” montage/AV 16 (1):101–120.Google Scholar
Wirth, Werner, Hartmann, Tilo, Böcking, Saskia, Vorderer, Peter, Klimmt, Christoph, Schramm, Holger, Saari, Timo, Laarni, Jari, Ravaja, Niklas, Gouveia, Feliz Ribeiro, Biooca, Frank, Sacau, Ana, Jänicke, Lutz, Baumgartner, Thomas, and Jänicke, Petra. 2007. “A Process Model of the Formation of Spatial Presence Experiences.” Media Psychology 9 (3):493–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Worringer, Wilhelm. [1907] 1997. Abstraction and Empathy. Translated by Bullock, Micheal. Chicago: Elephant Paperbacks.Google Scholar
Wulff, Hans J. 2003. “Empathie als Dimension des Filmverstehens: Ein Thesenpapier.” montage/AV (January 12):136–161.Google Scholar
Ziegler, Theobald. 1894. “Zur Genesis eines ästhetischen Begriffs.” Zeitschrift für vergleichende Literaturgeschichte 7. Weimar: Verlag von Emil Felber.Google Scholar