Stillness and Time 02; Stillness Becoming: reflections on Bazin, Barthes and Photographic Stillness (Jonathan Friday)
이 글은 사진 혹은 필름의 이미지적 매체적 특성보다는
시간성에 초점을 맞춘 글이다.
bazin과 barthes는 반대적 입장이다. 바진은 사진보다 필름 더 우위. 바르트는 사진이 더 우위.
이러한 차이적 견해를 제시한 뒤에 그럼에도 불구하고 이 두 매채에서 우리가 하나의 dimension, which is time을 추가하게 되었다는 걸 언급하다.
The invention of cinema, changed the conception of photographic sillmess at least as much as the invention of high-speed cameras and film. p.39.
It is interesting that it took many decades before photographers began deliberately to blur parts of the iamge to suggest movement. p.39.
We need to begin by reminding ourselves of this conception. It has two main elements, one of which is perhaps only a little less obvious than the other. First, what is depicted in a photograph is not capable of movement within the picture-frame: it is a still image in contrast to cinema’s capacity to depict objects in movement relative to each other and the frame enclosing them.
Secondly, cinematic influences upon thought about photography have also resulted in a conception of stillness as the extractedness of an individual image from the real or implied series if images that precede or follow it. p.41.
The immobility of the subject matter, its seizure and extraction from the rhythmic movement of the world; this is the cinematic conception of photographic stillness described and embodied in a picture. p.41.
For many theorists and photographers, photographs are a unique kind of historical record because they enable spectators to make perceptual contact with, or otherwise have made present to them, objects in the historical past. Photographs, as Bazin for example, would have it, preserve objects from time, by bearing their imprint and thus conveying something of their being through time but outside its effects. p.42.
when Lumiere was able to effect the technological and imaginative transformation of photography into cinema, Bazin believed this ideal was finally achived. p.42
Bazin finds a source of great value in photography and its therefore not wholly disparaging of the medium, nevertheless his position does amount to the claim that everything photography does, cinema can do better, because of the latter’s embalming of temporal duration and animated movement. p.44.
Trivially, photogrpahs are incapable of depicting their objects in motion, and are still in that sense. But also, photographs are objects ambalmed ar an instantaneous moment in their past and extracted form the flow of events affecting and affected by them.
Here we can see how the notion of photograpic stillness as the extractedness of the iamge leads directly to problems articulating the photograph’s relationship to time – particularly if you share Bazin’s realist view of photographs as sharing a kind of identity with their subject matter. The photographic extraction of being from the flow of events and the fixing of it into an image makes the temporal connection between the now of the photograph and all subsequent now exceedingly complex. p.44.
사진과 필름의 시간은 다르다고 보는 게 맞을 듯 하다.
만약 사진의 시간성을 단지 limit으로만 본다면, 단순해 질 수 있지만, 그것을 extract라고 본다면 풍부해진다. 사진은 being, 필름은 becoming.
There is a very real senses in which Bazin’s favouring of cinema over photography with regard to realism boils down to some perceived advantage of preserving a portion of being in the movement of its becoming. p.45.
We have seen enough of Bazin’s account of photographic stillness to see that he conceives of this quality as contributing to the photograph’s place within the order of being rather than becoming. p.46.
The subject matter is encoded in the photographic image in virtue of the imprinting nature of the process that procudes it. This essence is extracted from the flow of becoming and frozen in the stillness of being, providing the spectator escape from the flow of becoming and and encounter with the world stripped of appearances, a naked and immutable reality. p.47.
cinema with this medium there is the added dimension of motion. Cinema transfers a photochemical imprinting of some intervalof becoming-of course, motion and time- into the order of being. This added dimension makes cinema the final answer to the underlying need to preserve from becoming, not mere ianimate being, but a dynamic and imaginatively animate portion of changing reality.
no matter how much, however, that cinema is capable of satisfying the underlying pshychological urge more fully than photography, the latter has qualities that are absent, or at least diminished in the cinema. Where photography often gains in intimacy as a result of its stillness, duration and movement in cinema are prone to smoother its subject matter with expectation. p.47.
Barthes differs from Bazin in treating photography from a position in which the medium is independent of cinema, and evaluatively privileged in relation to it. p.49.
On the whole, Barthes is less concerned with stillness than he is with emphasising varieties of photographic motion.
The identity of photographic subject matter, the thing from which reflected light imprinted itself upon film, is a referential constant that cannot be changed. Time ca have its effect over what human beings believe a photograph depict, and over the connotative meaning of that subject matter. p.50.