Before photography, Bazin talks about how painting was the only way we could reproduce nature—it gave us a “likeness” of reality, but of course it wasn’t accurate, or at least not as accurate as the photograph. He emphasizes that, “Photography and the cinema on the other hand are discoveries that satisfy, once and for all and in its very essence, or obsession with realism”(240). Because the photograph is the most objective form of art we know, and it is a purely mechanical reproduction of what’s in front of us, it makes it okay for painting or other “plastic art forms” to be “illusionary.” I found this point very interesting. For me, painting is great because it does have the eye and subjectivity of the artist, and it isn’t meant to be a perfect representation of reality. But perhaps this is because I have always lived in a very photographic age. Before photos, people depended on paintings and although we like illusion, we also want the truth. Which is an important point that Bazin makes as well.
“All arts are based on the presence of man, only photography derives an advantage from his absence”(241). For one thing, photography is still dependent on man, because without him, no pictures would or could be taken. I realize this may seem petty, but I really believe that photographs are very much formed from the eye of the photographer. For example, before I went and saw the Leaning Tower of Pisa, I thought it was in a beautiful Italian city. Green grass surrounding, quaint houses, etc. Then I saw it myself, and it was surrounded by a pretty dirty city, and only the area directly surrounding the tower was clean and even idyllic. It made me think about how all the photographs I’d seen had planted the idea in my head of what the surroundings would be like. They weren’t photographed because they obviously took away from the majesty of the tower, which is, I suppose, understandable. But I think every photographer photographs what he or she wants to be seen, and I do it too. I crop things out of the photo as I take them, and it changes the mood as well as the actual seen that I want to portray. So although it is as objective as an art can be, it still has its subjectivities to be dealt with, and in the short piece “Photography,” by Siegfried Kracauer, he talks about the “formative” tendency. This is “…their urge freely to compose beautiful pictures rather than capture nature in the raw” (248). The composition of a photograph readily changes the photo, and two glimpses of the same thing can come out very differently depending on the photographer.
So on the one hand photography has allowed us to be okay with painting as an illusory art form, but it too has its own deceptions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I enjoyed reading Bazin’s essay as it offered interesting analysis regarding the psychoanalytic basis of photography. He states that the purpose of photography, much like mummification practiced in ancient Egypt, served to preserve one’s likeness as a response to a primal fear of death. This reminded me of Benjamin’s concept of the cult value of art. In both, photographic portraits can be seen as connections between the viewers who are present and the subject that are preserved. As time progressed, Bazin proposes that the nature of art shifted from preserving the memories of loved ones to creating “an ideal world in the likeness of the real.” However, this artistic preoccupation with realism was redefined with the advent of photography. He argued that photography is superior to art in capturing realistic representations of the world; thus, freeing art from its preoccupation with realism. In contrast, Kracauer, in his essay offers up a different view on the relationship between painting and photography. In Kracauer’s essay, he cites Duchamp’s Nude Descending the Staircase as an example in which painting has benefitted from photography. To him, the experimentation with strobe photography and cinematic film did not force art away from the realistic into the abstract but instead contributed to its transformation. This transformation was aided by the photographic medium’s ability to help artist perceive an optical unconscious that not only provided the artist with a different view of “reality” but also transformed the boundaries art itself. In this context, the realism of photography and Bazin’s concept of photography’s role in freeing paintings from its preoccupation with realism becomes more complicated. As Kracauer pointed out, while photography might be a better representation of reality compared to paintings, it still reduces our colorful three-dimensional reality into a monochrome two-dimensional image. As a result, I believe that rather than simply freeing paintings from realism, the relationship between photography and art is more complex and synergetic than that proposed by Bazin in his essay.
Dear Madam Kris,
I was joyed to find your Web Blog that references my landmark essay.
Pay me a visit any time on the Internet!
Regards,
Walter Benjamin
Post a Comment