Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/12/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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. >