“The equivalent of
its temporal photography would be a giant film depicting the temporally interconnected
events from every vantage point.” – Kracauer p425
It may have taken four pages of
reading but I finally understood a concept that Kracauer was conveying. The historicists believe that an event cannot
be truly depicted unless EVERY aspect is presented. I like the example he gives in relation to
film that the equivalent would be film with different points of view of the
same event. It reminded me of the movie Vantage
Point in which a bombing was replayed over and over from different
characters’ points of view. The movie
was fairly annoying to see some the same parts but it was an interesting effect
that I had not witnessed.
“A portrait painter
who submitted entirely to “natural necessity” would at best create photographs. During a
particular period, which began
with the Renaissance
and may now be approaching its end,
the ‘artwork’ is indeed faithful
to nature whose specificity reveals itself more
and more during this period. But by penetrating this nature the artwork orients
itself toward ‘higher purposes.’” – Kracauer p427
I understand the point that Kracauer
is making, that to paint something that duplicates the actual object is not too
different than a photograph. But I do
not agree that it is any less artful.
Sure, it may take less of an artistic mind to create such an image but
they are both still art. I guess to
summarize my feeling about this excerpt is that they are separate but equal
forms of art; neither has a “higher purpose.”
No comments:
Post a Comment