11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The phantasmagoria: From ghostly apparitions to multisensory fairground entertainment

      Frontiers in Communication
      Frontiers Media SA

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The “phantasmagoria” is a term that originally referred to the ghost lantern shows first staged in France at the end of the 18th Century by the Belgian inventor and entertainer Étienne-Gaspard Robertson. The question to be addressed in this review concerns the link between the phantasmagoria (defined as a ghostly visual entertainment) and the multisensory sensorium (or sensory overload) of the fairground and even, in several other cases, the Gesamtkunstwerk (the German term for “the total work of art”). I would like to suggest that the missing link may involve the ghost attractions, such as Dr. Pepper's Ghost (first developed at the Royal Polytechnic Institute in London in the 1860s), and the Phantasmagoria, that were both promoted in fairgrounds across England in the closing decades of the 19th Century.

          Related collections

          Most cited references82

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Why Is There So Much More Research on Vision Than on Any Other Sensory Modality?

          Why is there so much more research on vision than on any other sensory modality? There is a seemingly easy answer to this question: It is because vision is our most important and most complex sense. Although there are arguments in favor of this explanation, it can be challenged in two ways: by showing that the arguments regarding the importance and complexity of vision are debatable and by demonstrating that there are other aspects that need to be taken into account. Here, I argue that the explanation is debatable, as there are various ways of defining “importance” and “complexity” and, as there is no clear consensus that vision is indeed the most important and most complex of our senses. Hence, I propose two additional explanations: According to the methodological-structural explanation, there is more research on vision because the available, present-day technology is better suited for studying vision than for studying other modalities – an advantage which most likely is the result of an initial bias toward vision, which reinforces itself. Possible reasons for such an initial bias are discussed. The cultural explanation emphasizes that the dominance of the visual is not an unchangeable constant, but rather the result of the way our societies are designed and thus heavily influenced by human decision-making. As it turns out, there is no universal hierarchy of the senses, but great historical and cross-cultural variation. Realizing that the dominance of the visual is socially and culturally reinforced and not simply a law of nature, gives us the opportunity to take a step back and to think about the kind of sensory environments we want to create and about the kinds of theories that need to be developed in research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Book: not found

            Dumbstruck

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Book: not found

              Techniques of the Observer. On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Frontiers in Communication
                Front. Commun.
                Frontiers Media SA
                2297-900X
                July 27 2022
                July 27 2022
                : 7
                Article
                10.3389/fcomm.2022.894078
                bc26aeac-7bb3-49f0-b521-ec9f5e3107d5
                © 2022

                Free to read

                https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article