What interests or surprises you about the readings and/or the screening? What did you find yourself agreeing or disagreeing with in the week’s materials?
Please write a response (around 350 words) to this week’s readings and screening(s). What interests or surprises you about the readings and/or the screening? What did you find yourself agreeing or disagreeing with in the week’s materials? How would you apply concepts from the readings to the week’s film? How does the film illustrate, contradict, or open up new ways of interpreting the readings?
These are all suggested approaches to the weekly response. Please feel free to address any, all, or none of them.
Please include at least two discussion questions at the conclusion of your response.
Requirements: 350 worsds
reserves direct at the General, Health Law. Oxford, and Theology Libraries The United States copyright law (Title 17 of the US Code) governs the making of copies of copyrighted material. A person making a copy in violation of the law is liable for any copyright infringement. Copying includes electronic distribution of the reserve materials by the user. The user should assume that any works in the reserve items are copyrighted.
‘”””‘ [L m If) ” 0 z: w (f) w ~ (!) ~ f-fr: 0 [L “” I 01 H ii [L 01 )”” 0 15 fi: U) U) “‘ w iSI iSI “‘ w “‘ (!) ~ a: What Is Cinema’t swer 1Dis queslioa and who must therefore reach out, as he did, beyood the JIC!een to the reabm of history, phil050phy, literature, pBJChology, socialogy in search of the answer, and in the process add another dimension to the humanities, are particularly in the debt of thls preceptor. -And now I have certain other debls to pay, first of all to Madame Janine Bazin who in every negotiation concerned· with this undertaldng has been graciousness itself. In addition I wish to adnowledge that without the generooif help of Jean Renoir, of whose genius Bazin was an ardent and on!Spoken admirer, and of my coDeagues Drs. Madeleine Korol and Gabriel Bonno, I would not have been able to r~nder many difficult passages into English. I am grateful a1&o to one of my .!ltudents, Senor Markowitz of the Argentine, who assisted me in comparing my English with the Spamsh translation. Finally, I am also deeply indebted to the special nwnber of Cahiers du Cinema dedicated to Andre Bazin for the facts and impcessiollll there recorded by his friends. 8 ~~c..~? ~ ~ 2(‘””” ~· ~at:. Cru-o {Wk~; ~~{~· U,…e… ~rfcv,.._-c. f , 14C:. f.. ~ UtL…;…. c-.,_: 0’–..Q. ; r “) Q~e-~ .. <1-·c.t. ~ (.,. e;”‘~-e… Wa…….·f J.,…. (4..r f-I ta,)f -I””C. . THE ONTOLOGY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC IMAGE ~’~ Ok~ct”e Ae 11 t'””;? ~~ ‘• ~ 1F THI! plastic arts were put und~r psychoanalysi!, the practice of embalming the dead might turn out to be a fundamental factor in their creation. The process might reveal that at the orig!JL of painting and scu1pture there lies a mummy complex. The religion of ·ancient Egypt, aimed against ·dealh, saw survival as depending on the continued existeni:e of the corporeal body. Thus, by providing a , defense agaii!St the passage of time it satisfied a basic psychological . need in man, fm: death is but the victory of time. To preserve. lfrtificially, his bodily appearance is to snatch it from the ftow of time, to stow it away neatly, so to speak, in the hold of life. It was natural, therefore, to keep up appearances in the face of the reality of death by preserving llesh and bone. The first Egyplian sta~, then, was a mummy, tanned and petrilied in sodium. Bllt pyramids and labyrinthine eomdorlf oliered no certain guarantee against ulfi. mate pillage. Otber forms of insurance were therefOre soughL &l, near the sarcophilgus, alongside the com tbat was to feed the dead, the Egyptians placed terra eotla statuettes, as substitute mummies which might r~ace the bcdies if thae were destroyed. It is thls religiollll use, then, that lays bare the primordial function of statu-9
(] ()_ I]) If) ” 0 z: w (J) w ::J “‘ ::J I-“‘ 0 ()_ 00 I (J) H z: a: ()_ (J) )”‘ 0 :E w :E ()_ If) If) (] U) “” “” (] U) (] “‘ ::J a: What Is Cinema? ary, namely, the preservation of lifu by a representation of life. Another manifestation of the same kind of thing is the arrowpierced clay bear to be found io preootoric caves, a magic identitysubstitute for tbe living animal, that will ensure a successful hunt The evolution, side by side, of art and civilization has relieved the plastic arts of theic magic role. Louis XIV did not have bimself embalmed He was content 1o survive in his portrait by Le Brun. Civilization cannot, however, entirely cast out the bogy of time. It can only sublimate our concern with il: to the level of rational lhlnJdng. No one believes any longer in the ontological idenlity of model mtd image, but an· are agreed that the image helps us to remember tbe subject mtd to preserve him from a second spiritual death. Today the making of images no longer shares an an-tbropocentric, u!ililarian purpose. It is no longer a queslion of csurvival after death, but o( a larger concept, tbe creation of an ideal world io the likeness of the real, with ils own temporal destiny. “How vain a thing is painting” if underneath our fond-admiration [or its works we do no.t discern man’s primitive need to have the 1allt word io the argument with death by mellllll of the form that endures. 1f the mstory of the plastic arts ill less a matter of their aesthetic than of their psychology then it will be seen to be essentially tbe story of resemblance, ·or, if you will, of realism. Seen in thill sociological perspective photography and cinema wonld provide a natural explanation for the great spiritual and teclmical crisis that overtook modern painting around the middle of the last .century. Andre Malraux bas described the cioema as the furthennost evolution to date of plastic realism, tbe beginnings of which were first manifest at tbe Renaissaru:e and which found its completest expression in baroque painting. It is true that. painting, the world over, has struclr a varied balance between tbe symbolic and realism. However, io the li.fteenth centory Western painting began to tllm from its ag~old coooern with spiritual realities expressed in the form proper to it, 10 ‘ The Onlolov of the Phatogmphic Image towards an effort to combine tills spiritual expression with as complete an imitation as possible of the outside world. The decisive moment 1l.lldoubtedly came with the discovery of the ficst scientific and already, io a sense, mechanical system of reproduction, namely, perspective: the camera obscura of Da Vinci foreshadowed the camera of Niepce. The artilll was now io a position to create the ilhrsion of three-dimensional space within which things appeared to eiist as ouc eyes in reality see them. Thenceforth painting was torn between two ambiliollS;. one, primarily aesthetk; namely the expression of spiritual reality wbere• . in tbe symbol trlllll!cended its model; the other, purely psycbological, namely the duplication of the world outside. The satisfaction of this appetite for illusion merely served to iocrease it tiD, bit by bit, ‘ it consunwd the plastic arts. However, aince perspective had omy solved the problem of form and not of movement, realism was forced to continue the search for some way of giving dramatic expression to the moment, a Tdnd of psychic fourth dimension that could suggest life in the tortured immobility of baroque art.” The great artists, of course, have always been able to combine the two tendencies. They have allotted to ead:i its proper place in the hierarchy of things, holding reality at their command and molding it at will into the fabric of their art. Nevertheless, tbe fact · remains that we are faced with two essentially dilierent phenomena and tbese any objective crilie must view separately Jf he is to understand the evolution of the pictorial. The need for illusion has not ceased to trouble the heart of painting since the sixteenth century. It is a purely mental need, of itself nonaesthetic, the origim of which must he. sought in the proclivity of the mind tuwanls magic. However, it is a need the pu1l of which has been strong enough to ·have seriously upset the equili’brium of the plastic arts. •It would be. imoresling ftom !hi& point of view 1<> otudy, in the illliS!m!ed mag.m-of ll!9~1!ll0, lhe rivalry bet1ftell photographic :reportiag and !he bm of drawing;~. The latter, in panirular, satisfied !he bai<><J.ue need for !be dramatic. A feeling for lhe plwlogl’apll.ic do<:ument &velopcd <m1y gradually. II’
“‘ [L m If) ” 0 z: w “‘ w ::J (!) ::J fa: 0 [L 00 I 01 H ii [L 01 )fr: 0 15 fi: 1) “‘ “‘ 1) iS) iS) “‘ 1) “‘ (!) ::J a: What Is Cinema? The quarrel over realism in act stems from a misunder&tanding, from a r;:onfusioo between the aesthetic and the psychological; 00-tweea true realism, the need that is to fi:ve significant expression to the world both conctelely and its essence, and the pseudm:ealism of a dccep!ioo aimed at fooling the eye (oc for that matter the mind); a pBeudorealism content in other words with illusory appearances. • That is why medieval art never passed through this crisis; simultaneously vividl}; realistic and highly spiritual, it mew nothing of the drama that came to light as a consequence of teclmica1 developments. Perspective was tbe orifi:nal sin of Western painting. It was redeemed from sin by Niepce and Lwniere. In achieving the alms of baroque 1!.11, photography bas freed the plastic arts from their obsession with likeness. Painticg was forced, as it turned out, to offer us illW!ion and this illusion was reckoned sufiicient unto ~ art. Photography and the cinema on the other hand are discoveries that satisfy, once and for all and in its very essence, our obsession witbreaism. No matter bow likillful the painter, his work was always in fee to an inescapable subjectivity. The fact that a human hand futenrened cast a sbadow of doubt over the image. Again, the essential factor in the trallllilioo from the baroque to photography is not the perfecti.Dg of a physical process {photography will long remain the mrerlor nf painting in the reproduction of «~lor); mther does it lie in a psychological fact, to wit, in completely satisfying onr appetite for illusion by a mechanical reproduc!ion in the making of which man plays no part. The solution is not to be found in the result achieved bot in tbe way of ac!lleving it. t • Perhaps the Comm!misllJ, before the;’ attach 1oo much importmcc to expROSion.ist nomm, mould stop lalkiJlg about it in a way more mitahle ro tllc eighloenth <:entll1)’, l!efore lbere were S1ll:h !hmp as ph-graphy or einema. MaJI>e it dooo not really matter if Russian painting is scec>lllkalo proWled Rnssia gives “” lim-ra!e einema. Eise~Jm.in is her Tintoi10tlll. t There is room, never!llel=s, for a mdy of the psychology of the lesser plasllc arls, the molding of <Ieath masks for example, which likewise ln•olves a “‘rtain antmnatic pro<: …. One mi&bf. amsidei: p~pphy in lbi• ..,_ as a melding. the la!Ung of aa imp=sion, by the manipula!lon of light. 12 I The Ontology of the Photographic Image This is why the conflict between style and likem:~~S is a relatively modern-phenomenon of which there is no trace before the invention of the” sensitized plate. Clearly the fascinating objectivity of Chardin is in no sense that of the photographer. The nineteenth century saw the real beginning~~ of the crisis of realism nf which Picasso is now the mytrucal central figure and which pnt to the test at one and the same lime the conditions determining lhe formal existence nf the plastic arts and their sociological rools. Freed from tbe “resemblance complex,” the modem painter abandons it to the masses _who, henceforth, identify resemblance on the one hand with photography and on the other with the kind of painting which is related to photography. Originality in photography as distinct from originality in painting lies in the essentially objective character of photography. [Bazin here makes a point of the fact that the lens, the basis of photography, is in French called the “objectif,” a nuance that is lost in English.-TR.l For the finit time, between tbe originating object and its reproduc!ion there intervenes only the instrumentality of a nonliving agent. For the rust time an image of tll.e world is formed automatically, without the creative intervention of man. The personality nf the photographer enters into the proceedings only in his l!elec!ion of the object to be photographed and by way of the Pllf11o&e he has in mind. Although the tinal result may .rellect something of his personality, this does not play the same role as is played by that of the painter. All the arts are based 011 the presence of man, only photography derlves an advantage from his absence. Photography affects Ill! like a phenomenoa in nature, like a !lower or a snowllalre wh05e •;egetable or earthly orifi:ns are an inseparable part of their beauty. This production by automatic means has radicaiJy affected our psychology of the image. The objective nature of photography confers on it a quality of credt’bility absent from all other picturemaklli!l-In spite cf any objections our cd!ical spirit may offer, we are forced to accept as real the eJdstence of tbe object reproduced, 13
” ()_ I]) If) ” 0 z: w (J) w :::J (!) :::J I-“‘ 0 o._ 00 I (J) H z: a: o._ (J) )”‘ 0 :E w :E o._ w If) N w “” “” N w N (!) :::J a: What ls Cinema? actnally re-presented, set before Ill!, !hat is to say, m time and space. Photography enjoys a certain advantage in virtue of Ibis transference of reality from !he !bing to its reproduction.* A very faithful drawing may actoally tell us more about !he model but despite the promptings of our critical intelligence it will never have !he irrational power of the photograph to bear away our faith. . . Besides, paintiog is, after all, an inferior way of making likenesses. an ersaJz of !he. processes of reproduction. Only: a: photographic le!J.S. can give us the kind of image of the object !hat is capable of satisfying tbe deep need man has to subs!itnte for it somelhing more than a. mere approximation, a kind of decal or trai!Sfer. The photographic image is the object itself, !he object freed from the conditiom of time and space that govern it. No matter how fuzzy, distorted, or discolmed, no matter how lacking in documentary value the image may be, it shares, by virtue of the very process of its becoming, the being of the model of which it is t1re reprodtic!ioo; it is the model. Hence !he charm of family albuma. Those grey or sepia shadows, pbantomJike and almost undecipherable, are no longer traditional family pmtraits but Ta!her the disturbing presence ·of Jives halted at a set moment in their duration, freed from their destiny; not, however, by the prestige of art but by the power of an impassive mechanical proce511: for pbotngraphy does not create elerdity, as art does, it embalms time, rescuing it simply from its proper corruption. Viewed in this perspective, the cinema is objectivity in time. The film is no longer content to preserve the object, enshrouded as it were ia an instant, as the bodies of ii!Sects are preserved intact, oot of the distant past, in amber. The lllm delivem baroque art from • He”‘ one should JC30y examine !he psychology of :eU”” and ~0F’e~lia ..nick Lil<cwise enjoy IM advantages of R tran:.fer of ta!ity s~mming from lho “‘mwmny-compl=” Let m merely note in pasoing that 1hc Holy Shroud of Turin combines !he futons alike of relic and pbo!ogmp!’-14 ‘ / The Ontology of the PhotoB!aphic Image ils con11Ul.sive catalepsy. Now, for the Jim time, the image of lhings is likewise the iraage of their dw:atioo, change mummilied as it were. Those. categories of resembl!U!Cil which determine the species photographic image likewise, then, deteiillint the character of il3 aesthetic as distinct frollj that of painting. • The aesthetic qualities of photogiaphy are to be sought in its power bllay bare the realities. It is not for me to separate off, in !he complex fabric of !he objective world, here a reHection on a damp sidewalk, there the gestu~e o~ a child. Only the impassive lens, stripping its object of all !bose ways of seeing it, those piled-up preconceptions; that spiritnal dust and grime with which my eyes have covered’ it, is ab1e to present It m ali its mginal purity to · my attenlioo and conseqnenlly to my love. By the power of photography, the natural image of a. world that we neither !mow nor can see. nature at last does more than imltate art: she imitates tile artist. Photography can even surpass art in creative power. The aesthetic world of the painter is of a different kind from !hat of the: wodd about him. Its boundaries enclose a substanlially and essentially diJierent microcosm. The photograph as such and tbe object in itself share .a common being. after the fashion of a llngerprint. Wherefore, photography actually contributes something to the order of natural creation instead of providing a substitute for it. The surrealists bad an inkling of this when they looked to the photographic plate to provide tflem with their molllltr~ities l!Dd for Ibis reason: the surrealist does not consider hls aeslhetic purpose and the mechanical effect of the image on our imaginatiollll as things apart. For him, the logical distinclion between what is imaginary and what is real tends to disappear. Every image is to be “I o.., !be term cst•gory !Jere is the ..,_ aUachcd !o it l>y M. Goobicr in his. book on !he lllca~r in wllieb M distinguishes between lbe dramatic and tbii ~tic eatogaries. Just u dramatic terulion !lao D<> artiolic value, ~he per· f«:lion of a “‘Prodlll:lion i! not lo be idouliiled wi!b beauty. ll consliluleo ralher !he prime matler, so to speat, co wmch 1hc artistic fact is recorded. 15
If) ()_ I]) If) ” 0 z: w (J) w :::J (9 :::J I-“‘ 0 ()_ 00 I (J) H z: a: ()_ (J) )”‘ 0 E w E ()_ !’If) ru Ul “” “” ru Ul ru “‘ :::J a: What 111 Cinema? seen as an object and every object as an image. Hence photography r.mb hlgh in the orde£ of surrealist creativity because it produces an image that is a reality of nature, namely, an hallucination that is also a fact. The fact that surrealist painliog combines trlckll of visual deception with meticulous alfimtiOil to detail substantiates this. So, photography is clearly the most important event in the history of plastic arts. S”wultaneously a liberation and a fulfillment, it has heed Western painting, once and for all, from its obsession with realism and allowed it to reOO’Ii’er its aesthetio autonomy. Impressionist realism, offering science as an alibi, is at the opposite extreme from eye-deceiving triclrery. Only when form ceases to have any imitative value can it be swallowed np in color. So, when foiiD, in the person of cezanne, once more regain;; possession of the canvas there is no longer any question of the EusioDII of the geometry of perspective. The painting. being confronted in the mechanically produced inrage with a competitor able to reach out beynnd baroque resemblance to the very identity of the model, ~ was compelled into the category of object. Henceforth Pascal’s condemnation of painting is itself rendered vain aince the photograph allows us on the one hand to admire in reproduction something that cur eyes alone could not have taught us to love, and on the other, to admire the painting as a thing in itself whose relation to something in nature has ceased to be the justili.cation for its existence. Oil the other hand, of course, cinema is also a language. 16 i ‘ r THE MYTH OF TOTAL CINEMA PAJ!ADOXICAJ..LY enough, the impression left on the reader by Georges Sadoul’s admirable book on the origii!S of the cinema is of a reversal, .in spite of the author’s Marxist views, of the relatiODII between an economic and technical evolution and the imagination of those carrying on the search. The way things happened seems to call for a reversal of the historical oroer of cansality, which goes from the economic infrastruclure to the ideological superstructure, and fur us to consider the basic technical discoveries es fortunate accldenlil but e5l!entially second in importance to the precoooelved ideas of the: inventors. The cinema is an idealistic phenomenon. The ooncept l!llm had of it existed so to speak fully armed in their minds, as if in some p.latonic heaven, and what strikes us most of all is the obstioate resistance of matter to ideas rather than of any help oliered by techniques to the imagination of~the researchers. Furthermore, the cinema owes virtually nothing to the Bcientili.c spirit. Its begetters are in no seDIIe savants, except for Marey, but it is significant that he was only interested in analyzing movement and not in reconstructing it. Even Edison is basicaHy only a do-itynurself man of genius, a giant of the cmv:ows Lepine. Niepce, Muybridge, l&roy, Joly, DemeDY, even I..ouill Lllmiere l!imself, are all monomaoiaa;, men driven by an impulse, do-it-yourself men or 17
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
