Animationtheory is still in its infancy and borrows heavily from the more established field of film theory or so it seems. In my mind, time-based medium is time-based medium and animation and film do not differ in the way the viewer experiences it, because it is totally irrelevant whether the film is documenting the real world, so to speak or is constructed frame by frame. A film will always be a sequence of images that we will look at and perception of vision is what makes those images come to "life" and create the "illusion" of still images moving rapidly. In other words, us looking at image after image creates the motion in our mind, so the experience of the film is basically inside the mind of the viewer, the time-based medium is merely a vehicle to create and recreate the "vision", the "experience" of the viewer.
What fascinates me, is the similarities and dissimilarities of the different time-based media, be it music, theater, film, literature etc. in my mind there is obviously a very strong correlation between time-based media and static 3-dimensional objects, because in the case of time-based media the viewer is static and the "motion", the "action" is happening on the "stage", the "screen", the "soundstage", on the paper in the book, whereas in experiencing a 3 dimensional object the individual is either moving through space, through a room, through a building or around an object and thus sees an everchanging image of the same object. If I walk around, say, a cube, the way, I see the cube is changing constantly, i never see the same image, i see the cube from the front, from the top, part of it, one -third of it and so on. Now, if i make an animation of the same cube, i slice the different images i see, into pieces and thus create the illusion of motion.
I have to, obviously, do more research into this matter, because, at this point, i am mushing together and am not very clear, what is going on. I will look at different forms of discussion of 3dimensional space.