Skip to content

the reticence of the image

April 11, 2011
2 Comments leave one →
  1. roxana permalink
    April 13, 2011 4:50 pm

    i am not sure i get him here, what he says makes more sense for me in terms of photography/painting comparison – besides, his own argument of the ‘reticence’/limitation is more fitting for photography, since cinematography which also has movement and sound is much closer to reality (that has always been my first reason to prefer photography to video, actually, if you remember).

  2. April 23, 2011 10:54 am

    as to the surface plane and a two-dimensional image i think what he says is something largely overlooked in cinematography. imagine a film composed like an 12th century Chinese brush & ink painting, flattening out perspectives and presenting foreground and background on equal footing–this is utterly anti-hollywood. that said however in this clip he does not account for movement, time and sound which obviously add other dimensions to film denied (in particular ways) to still photos. but here he was limiting himself to a critique of 3D technology, so it is understandable. interesting to go back and watch Mother & Son and Father & Son after listening to his thoughts here.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: