Something that
surprised me this week:
The purpose or effect of using still images within the
moving image industry is something I had never contemplated. Everyone recognizes a ‘freeze frame’ of
course, but that they can be used for so many purposes is something I never
recognized. To create suspense,
introduce a character, dramatize a moment, or even switch between narratives
the still images in the midst of the moving reminds me of a small hard candy my
kids love- the moving image being the candy itself and the still frame the
fizzy center offering something of a ‘punch’ to stop you in your tracks.
What aspects of
technology have had the most profound impact upon the development of
photography?
I love opposites-
especially when one is derived from the other (hence my blog theme- light and
shadows). The reading this week was very
interesting on the idea of how moving pictures changed photography from the
center to the aftermath of culture.
Turned from the means and way of understanding happening events to the
‘still’ aftermath and how we remember them.
“Cinema, we could say, wasn’t just the
invention of the moving image, it was also the invention of stillness as a sort
by-product.” (Company, 5) Moving pictures created the still image- or at least gave them an antithesis.
How has the
relationship between photography, science, and technology affected how we
attribute ideas around knowledge and truth to the photographic image?
We love ‘proof.’ Fontcuberta quotes Disderi as he noted in
1862, ‘The Photograph adds the authority
of evidence to the notions that science already possessed. It has become the correction factor for the
erroneous opinions. It supplies us all with information of an absolute
exactitude, and with sure methods to preserve the memory of things.” Photography images so fully cement our
truths- but are they to be believed so willingly? New technology makes it even easier to
present things in a way we want them presented.
Even knowing this we embrace the ‘truth’ of photo’s willingly.
The chapter on
eugenics and particularly Nancy Burson’s work was exceptionally fascinating to
me. I keep pondering how this affects me and my own work. I like the thought that Burson had an idea- and followed it to fruition and simply by doing that was able to create change and do some good in this world. I can only hope as much for my own work in the future.
Works Cited:
Campany, David. Safety in Numbness: Some Remarks on the
Problems of ‘Late Photography [IN] The Cinematic. London: MIT Press, 2007.
Fontcuberta, J. Eugenics Without Borders [IN] Pandora’s
camera: photogr@phy after photography. London: Mack, 2014
No comments:
Post a Comment