RE: Re[2]: [Leica] Still and motion pictures

[Jeffrey Hausner <Buzz@marianmanor.org>]

Hi, Art,

	I, Buzz Hausner, am "Whoever-you-are."  I can't disagree with the
points you make on the differences between still and moving images.
However, I still feel that the enhanced power of still images derives, at
least in part, from the viewer's ability to study them and to invest them
with more of his or her personal prejudices and experiences.  As B.D. has
pointed out better than I can, still images seem to become icons of events
even more than moving images do and I believe there is a basis for this in
the ways that we view and use these images.  I don't want to say that movies
and video have no place in the pantheon of arts, indeed, photography has
been the poor sibling of the arts for too many years.  However, to me
nothing expresses an event or an emotion better than a single, brilliant
still image.

	Buzz

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Peterson_Art@hq.navsea.navy.mil
> [SMTP:Peterson_Art@hq.navsea.navy.mil]
> Sent:	Friday, December 11, 1998 11:47 AM
> To:	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> Subject:	Re[2]: [Leica] Still and motion pictures
> 
>      
>      Hi, Whoever-you-are,
>      
>      Thanks for your comments.  By "accurate interpretation" I meant that 
>      in addition to our subjectivities, there is also an objective reality
> 
>      that we may attempt, albeit imperfectly, to get at; and that by
> giving 
>      some context to a still photo's particular slice of time, a motion 
>      picture may more easily enhance the accuracy (reduce the
> subjectivity) 
>      of a viewer's interpretation.  Certainly, as you point out, much of 
>      "what comes before or after the 'moment' may be irrelevant."  But I 
>      was not talking about everything that randomly comes before and after
> 
>      the moment, but rather only the "moments that led to it and the 
>      moments that resulted from it"---that is to say, only the moments (or
> 
>      perhaps more precisely, only the events in those moments) that were 
>      relevant to that slice of time, or to put it another way, only those 
>      moments of cause (before) and effect (after).  Thus a motion picture 
>      may lend itself to this enhanced "accuracy," and on the other hand, a
> 
>      still photo may lend itself more readily to the conveyance of an 
>      artist's (photographer's) subjective viewpoint (which is NOT to say 
>      that a motion picture cannot be made to distort reality, NOR that a 
>      still photograph cannot accurately represent it).
>      
>      I hope that explanation helps.  I don't disagree with anything you've
> 
>      said; we're rather just talking about somewhat different things. :)
>      
>      Art Peterson
>      Alexandria, VA
>      
> 
> ______________________________ Reply Separator
> _________________________________
> Subject: RE: [Leica] Still and motion pictures
> Author:  leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us at Internet
> Date:    12/11/98 10:01 AM
> 
>  Art,
>      
>   What do you mean by an accurate interpretation?  I believe
> that all interpretations are subjective and idiosyncratic, accurate only
> to 
> the interpreter.  Consider that what comes before or after the "moment"
> may 
> be irrelevant to or contradict the message of the photographer.  What
> then? 
> Do we accuse the photographer of lying? Of trying to manipulate our
> emotions 
> with a "false" moment?  I think that in the case of the still photograph,
> it 
> is the photographer's right to present the moment and message she or he 
> wishes us to interpret, and that it is not incumbent on the still 
> photographer to provide "context."  I know that this isn't the position
> you 
> are taking,  but what we're really discussing here are the rights and 
> responsibilities of artists to convey a message, whether it is through
> still 
> or moving images.
>      
> >      Much thanks for your very perceptive observations!  You point out 
> > that 
> >      whereas the still photo is "powerful" and "intensifies by leaving
> out 
> > 
> >      details," the motion picture "shows more" and "allow[s] for a
> richer 
> >      interpretation;" and I'd add, possibly a more accurate
> > interpretation. 
> >      Also, you conclude that "[n]either medium is intrinsically better
> or 
> >      more powerful."  But the reality of any given moment (still photo)
> is 
> > 
> >      a function of its context (the moments that led to it and the
> moments 
> > 
> >      that resulted from it), and so the more we understand of that 
> > context, 
> >      the better we understand the specific moment.  A still photo 
> > therefore 
> >      may lend itself more easily to an artist's use of a situation to
> make 
> > 
> >      a statement of his or her choosing, whereas a motion picture (apart
> 
> >      from an artificial creation, like a commercial movie) may
> facilitate 
> > a 
> >      deeper, fuller, or more accurately understood reportage of an
> event. 
> >