David Campany discusses the phenomenon of what he calls "late photography"; photography that captures the aftermath of an event instead of the immediate actions during. In Randell's article cinema and television are discussed as mediums through which our memories are linked and activated. Campany discusses photography in much the same way, but perhaps differently in that photography is seen by most as being "more memorable" than moving images. Because these images are after the fact, they are often shown to symbolically stand for an event in newspapers or galleries, which Campany argues detaches/decontextualizes them from the action and the event itself. He considers the problems of "late photography", being that the viewer may respond more because of the aesthetic qualities of the image than the event itself, and an "indifference" to the event because one photograph does not capture all of the circumstances.
Campany says close to the end of his article that it's easy to see how our modern culture can see single still photographs as "superior" to the fragmented video clips of events from many different perspectives. I completely agree. When I see a still image of an event or the aftermath of an event that I've become familiar with through televised news, it's easier for me to look at compared to the moving images of what happened. It gives me a symbol for the event that I can recognize easily in the future when I see the image again in different contexts. It gives me something firm to hold onto, but I can see how it might be dangerous. These images only represent one perspective.
4 comments:
I completely agree with the feeling that still photographs are seen as "superior" to fragmented video clips and I think it is partially due to the fact that when viewing the video, we are required to watch the entire clip in order to see the ending. There is no immediacy to the conclusion. Maybe it is because we have become lazy or time obsessive, but society has grown into a sense of anxiety towards the finite nature of life. We both obsess over and remain fearful of endings. This hypocritical nature has consumed other areas of our lives as well. The lack of knowing for just those few seconds longer is too much to handle. We want to know now.
-Morgan Kirol
I think part of the cultural perception that photographs are "superior" may have to do both with their accessibility and history as documentary artifacts. It is worth noting how often photography is labelled as "indexical" while video, despite it being essentially the same technology is never referred to in the same way. In regard to accessibility, the photograph is immediate and self-serving whereas a a video requires a playback device. Video doesn't "exist" in a viewable format. In order to experience it we need to remove it a step further than a still photograph and put it on a screen. Perhaps this leads to the public distaste for video as the final documentation of an event.
I disagree with photos being superior knowledge of an event compared to video. Where i somewhat agree is where Morgan is talking about having to wait to see the whole video to understand as well as her point of immediately getting the information we want to see. Yet this is why i think video is more important because you can see the spectrum of what happened unfold in front of your eyes as if you were there. With a photograph you only have a split second of an event. In some circumstances i think that is all is needed to understand what happened but for the most part the more information the better.
I also am confused with Andrews point of how photo exists without a playback. The only way i see this as true is with a Polaroid camera. When you take a picture on your phone you can view it just as immediately as viewing a video from a phone, or any digital camera for that matter. With film you have to develop just as is with video needing to be developed.
Post a Comment