Silent train...

Just one more comment about the senses and sound and image in films. About Steven Woloshen's  film, in particular, I know how important the roll of sound is to him and how he starts by listening over and over again to a musical piece, while in his car, playing the rhythm with his fingers, trying to understand and feel the sound before starting visualizing and animating it... 

Do the sound-train and image-train go together? How different an experience would be looking at a train coming towards us without its sound?

Any small change in image or sound bring out a totally different result. I remember Erin's comment when she showed in class a short video I made -Movements II- (trying different ways to show it I made a version with one screen and another one with two): How different the one with the two screens was because the eye would concentrate on the  in-between black space created by the two screens one next to the other and how the ominous and rhythmic sound specifies the experience...

I guess that  the senses collaborate and they "lend" their specificities to one another even when some of them are absent.

I hear what my hand is seeing....

In reaction to Felix commentary (Sight for sore ears?), I will first start to say that: "It is true, there is no stupid question, just uneasy way to express oneself questioning." Secondly, I would like to try to give an answer to the problematic you invoked in your post.

I'm a true believer that the way we use (or not) our senses (see, ear, touch, smell and taste) changes the way we react (physically, emotionally and philosophically) toward arts. A film like we saw last week, even if it is made to create a unison between visual and audio, don't mean it is the only way that it could take form. In fact, seen this film without the sound (or just hearing the sound without seeing the images) could bring out something else that what happened on screen before. Cinema is a particular medium because it work with the visual and the auditory, but we often give more importance to the visual. What we hear pass in us in a more subtle way than what we see. The human brain is mostly functioning like that.

If you think of other kind of art, you will naturally tend to separate them between the visual and the auditory category, but they are not just limited to one. When you react with one sense, you just don't acknowledge the participation of the others on a conscious level. But without knowing it, the sensation that you feels will each time require the involvement of more than one sense. When you perceive the sensation brought to you by an experience (film, art, emotion, moment, etc), if you try to consciously acknowledge how each of your senses reacts, you will feel each one separately and together in the same time. At this moment, you will experience more than what you can imagine possible -- you'll know the perception that each brings out, and the similarities they share.

For my experience, the senses can be made perceived in the mode of the other specificity because even if they are traveling through different canal, they are link to one another. They work for one another and they are far more one living under separate aspect than divided tools of perception.

Feeling the movement

When I think of movement, which senses do I use? When I 'see' a movement-image, is it my eyes that address it? Do I feel the aura on my body, smell the wind of movement? Is it an action-reaction to my own movement? My brain records it, my senses are re-constructing it... Movement-images address other movement images which contain other images...