Re[2]: [Leica] Still and motion pictures

[Peterson_Art@hq.navsea.navy.mil]

     Hi, Whoever-you-are,
     
     Thanks for your comments.  By "accurate interpretation" I meant that 
     in addition to our subjectivities, there is also an objective reality 
     that we may attempt, albeit imperfectly, to get at; and that by giving 
     some context to a still photo's particular slice of time, a motion 
     picture may more easily enhance the accuracy (reduce the subjectivity) 
     of a viewer's interpretation.  Certainly, as you point out, much of 
     "what comes before or after the 'moment' may be irrelevant."  But I 
     was not talking about everything that randomly comes before and after 
     the moment, but rather only the "moments that led to it and the 
     moments that resulted from it"---that is to say, only the moments (or 
     perhaps more precisely, only the events in those moments) that were 
     relevant to that slice of time, or to put it another way, only those 
     moments of cause (before) and effect (after).  Thus a motion picture 
     may lend itself to this enhanced "accuracy," and on the other hand, a 
     still photo may lend itself more readily to the conveyance of an 
     artist's (photographer's) subjective viewpoint (which is NOT to say 
     that a motion picture cannot be made to distort reality, NOR that a 
     still photograph cannot accurately represent it).
     
     I hope that explanation helps.  I don't disagree with anything you've 
     said; we're rather just talking about somewhat different things. :)
     
     Art Peterson
     Alexandria, VA
     

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: [Leica] Still and motion pictures
Author:  leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us at Internet
Date:    12/11/98 10:01 AM

 Art,
     
  What do you mean by an accurate interpretation?  I believe
that all interpretations are subjective and idiosyncratic, accurate only to 
the interpreter.  Consider that what comes before or after the "moment" may 
be irrelevant to or contradict the message of the photographer.  What then? 
Do we accuse the photographer of lying? Of trying to manipulate our emotions 
with a "false" moment?  I think that in the case of the still photograph, it 
is the photographer's right to present the moment and message she or he 
wishes us to interpret, and that it is not incumbent on the still 
photographer to provide "context."  I know that this isn't the position you 
are taking,  but what we're really discussing here are the rights and 
responsibilities of artists to convey a message, whether it is through still 
or moving images.
     
>      Much thanks for your very perceptive observations!  You point out 
> that 
>      whereas the still photo is "powerful" and "intensifies by leaving out 
> 
>      details," the motion picture "shows more" and "allow[s] for a richer 
>      interpretation;" and I'd add, possibly a more accurate
> interpretation. 
>      Also, you conclude that "[n]either medium is intrinsically better or 
>      more powerful."  But the reality of any given moment (still photo) is 
> 
>      a function of its context (the moments that led to it and the moments 
> 
>      that resulted from it), and so the more we understand of that 
> context, 
>      the better we understand the specific moment.  A still photo 
> therefore 
>      may lend itself more easily to an artist's use of a situation to make 
> 
>      a statement of his or her choosing, whereas a motion picture (apart 
>      from an artificial creation, like a commercial movie) may facilitate 
> a 
>      deeper, fuller, or more accurately understood reportage of an event. 
>