In the course notes for the exercise 'The Myth of Objectivity', a link is given to the full documents from which the quotes by Bazin and Sekula were taken. This is my notes on Bazin's document.
Bazin begins by talking of how people historically attempted to 'preserve life', utilising mummification and statuettes as in ancient Egypt. He then goes on to say how painting took over this role, with people being content with having their likeness preserved in a hand-made picture, rather than embalmement. This process has evolved over time, and in the fifteenth century, Western painters became to become more concerned with as complete an imitation of the outside world as possible. Today's cinema has been described as the furthermost evolution to date of plastic realism.
Photography has freed the plastic arts from their obsession with likeness. Photography and the cinema are discoveries that satisfy, once and for all and in its very essence, our obsession with realism.
Bazin states that regardless of the skill of the painter, there is always an inescapable subjectivity in their work, as a human hand intervened; this casts a shadow of doubt over the image. He also says that photography is '...a mechanical reproduction in the making of which man plays no part'. Which we of course now understand to not be accurate.
It seems that in this writing, Bazin's main points are that paintings are inevitably subjective, regardless of their realism, while photographs are inescapably objective, and that they have 'irrational power to bear away our faith'. Also, that photography has taken over the job of accurately reproducing a scene, giving painting freedom and allowed it to recover its aesthetic autonomy.
Direct quotes from the document that I found interesting and useful:
'the preservation of life by the representation of life'.
The evolution of art and civilisation has relieved the plastic arts of their magic role. (of preservation). Initially people were embalmed to preserve a representation. Later, painting took on this role.
No one now believes that these representations actually preserve life, but they help us to remember the subject.
Andre Malraux has described the cinema as the furthermost evolution to date of plastic realism, the beginnings of which were first manifest at the Renaissance and which found a limited expression in baroque painting.
In the fifteenth century Western painters began to become more concerned with as complete an imitation of the outside world as possible.
Thenceforth painting was torn between two ambitions: one, primarily aesthetic, namely the
expression of spiritual reality wherein the symbol transcended its model; the other, purely
psychological, namely to duplicate the world outside.
In achieving the aims of baroque art, photography has freed the plastic arts from their
obsession with likeness. Painting was forced, as it turned out, to offer us illusion and this illusion
was reckoned sufficient unto art. Photography and the cinema on the other hand are discoveries
that satisfy, once and for all and in its very essence, our obsession with realism.
No matter how skillful the painter, his work was always in fee to an inescapable subjectivity.
The fact that a human hand intervened cast a shadow of doubt over the image.
...a mechanical reproduction in the making of which man plays no part.
A very faithful drawing may actually tell us more about the model but despite the promptings
of our critical intelligence it will never have the irrational power of the photograph to bear
away our faith.
it has freed Western painting, once and for all, from its obsession with realism and
allowed it to recover its aesthetic autonomy.
No comments:
Post a Comment