cinematic image…

“’If anyone thinks I paint too fast, they are watching me too fast,’ wrote Van Gogh. Already, the classic photograph is no more than a freeze frame. With the decline in volumes and in the expanse of landscapes, reality becomes sequential and cinematic unfolding finally gets the jump on whatever is static and on the strength of materials.”

Virilio, P. (Rose, J. trans) (1997) Open Sky, Verso, London. PP26-27.

This comment by Paul Virilio in Open Sky is of particular interest to me regarding the situation with compact cameras. What situation is that? Well, compact cameras disguise the mechanics of the process so as that people are no longer aware of how the process takes place. One can be aware of the camera’s functions through the names presented on the menus, in other words: one can be aware of White Balance without knowing where it comes from or what it means. However, this isn’t the process that I am referring to. The process to which I am referring is how the image is created on the screen instantly. People are obviously aware of the digital technology involved but are they aware that it isn’t even photography any more? The eye is increasingly viewing in a cinematic fashion, which reduces the concept and object of photography to a word in a much bigger language. That word is a still. The danger with viewing all of photography as a word in another language would create rife amongst the photographic unions leaving me vulnerable to attacks in self defence. However, acceptance of such an idea is a reluctance to identify their art in relationship to a more vague umbrella. No one wants to conform their ideas into a bigger picture even though we consistently have to in order to justify that which we are doing. The point in all of this is that Video although a medium in itself (and wrongly titled at that) is a good definition for the whole practice of art and not just a specific kind of tape format. Deriving, as I have said before from the latin ‘I see’, the term applies to all forms of art which stem from seeing. Perhaps the problem lies in the classification of art by the medium. Perhaps the art should be classified by its source. For example a work derived from my perspective would be classed as video; another work that derives from anybody’s perspective would be considered as videre; and so on. The difficulty here is that the medium then becomes relational to the subject and the object. Instead of art being defined by what it is made of, the classification of a work of art becomes much more vague and perhaps even unnecessary. For example, to describe Van Gogh’s work, we would have to say it is for him video, but as he is now dead, it might become the latin term for ‘he sees’ or even ‘he saw’. If we see his ‘painting’ as a symbol that we read as part of a larger indexical set of signs then the classification of his work may yet be once again video for ‘I see’ or the latin for ‘what they want us to see’. If that happens then Van Gogh has not only has no physical ownership of the work but also has no symbolic ownership, as it would become part of everyone’s associated language that is called culture. This I feel illustrates how irrelevant a classification of a medium can be and that to call photography photography is to try and make it special when quite clearly it isn’t.

If we stand back way from the camera though, and look with our own eyes, what do we see? Stand still and watch and everything is an image where only touch can relieve the sensation of a projected simulated environment. Move your head slowly from one side to the other whilst keeping your body fixed and the image becomes no longer a still one but a panned one. Step sideways slowly and the image becomes a tracked one. Like the tool that was the extension of the hand which the hand then symbolized; Like the machine that was the body which the body then alluded to; the camera and specifically the cinematic image presents what the eye sees and how it sees it, and only now do we begin to sense that the eye is alluding to the camera. This is a change in perception and a process which cannot be altered all the time that compact digital cameras blur distinctions between the photographic and the video image.

There is one more aspect to consider and that is no moving image is complete without sound. Introduced by ipods and other personal music players, the music is entered directly into the mind in accompaniment to the image. This strengthens the allusion of the moment experienced to a cinematic moment. The audio essentially acquires the role of the soundtrack for the personal experience that is taking place in that moment. Walk down the street on a busy sidewalk with hundreds of people walking towards you and Damien Rice’s The blower’s daughter in your ear could very well leave you wondering who you might bump into. I don’t necessarily mean that you would bump into Natalie Portman but the effect of which, if you were to allow your imagination to do so, could leave you getting the wrong impression from someone who might happen to look at you and smile. Experiences are increasingly becoming cinematic through sight and sound, and without any self control over one’s imagination, could result in many miscommunications and misunderstandings. The effects of those may well lead to trauma and disfunction in the social sphere. The word ‘dramatic’ is very much appropriate for such situations and could lead inevitably to disorders such as bi-polar, where mood swings would be aplenty and perhaps attributable to 90 min narratives. ‘Dramatic’ would have derived from the theatrical plays of action, sadness and emotion and modern entertainment films are not dissimilar to this. It would be easy then to affiliate with various films more closely and it has been often noted that obsession could become plausible, whereby reality is difficult to separate from fiction. Such a separation is easier to spot because the characters would not exist. Yet, recognizing a distinction between the real and the cinematic real is a much harder prospect.

Before we had a narrative- a straight timeline- but now we are loaded with multiple narratives and a time that is no longer fixed at the point of entry and the point of departure (Virilio, 1997). This means that our narratives are fragments randomly floating around on the surface of the planet, occasionally going up and down in mood with the music and images we hear and see. The only way that these narratives don’t get out of hand is by setting them limitations; a country, a car, a cell, a capsule.

Perception is relative. When perception is relative, does that mean that objects surrounding one’s perception are fixed? To be relational to your surroundings is perhaps indicative of the effects of the cinematic image. The way to deal with it is to keep it at a distance and merely enjoy it. Perhaps it is not wise to allow it to consume you.

“if you place a thing at the centre of your life that lacks the power to nourish, it will eventually poison everything that you are and destroy you. A simple a thing as an idea or your perspective of yourself or the world. No one can be the source of your content, it lies within, in the centre.”

Liontamer, by Faithless from the album Outraspective. Lyrics by Rollo and Maxi Jazz.