| >> |
05/04/10(Tue)15:11 No.801094>>801091
You're
right that more effort, and more concrete effort, benefits artworks. It
usually yields better results. But however the result happens, it
doesn't invalidate what the result is. Take the case of the filmmaker
Werner Herzog, who regularly outright fakes shit (ala Ryszard
Kapuściński or Dr. Hunter S. Thompson) in his documentaries, because
"ecstatic truth... can be reached only through fabrication and
imagination and stylization," but who hauled an actual steamship over a
mountain, but who CGI'd aircraft for his film "Rescue Dawn," and does
DIs like everyone else. A better, and more explicit, recent example
would be the way digital processing was used on Michael Haneke's "Das
Weisse Band:" the film was shot with color film, with next to no
artificial lighting, for a more natural look, and was put in the DI into
black and white and whenever there wasn't enough light somewhere, they
selectively added to it. It's one of the most visually convincing movies
of the past few years, maybe the most. And in the service of its
realism, a triple distortion was used: first, the two-dimensionalism
virtually all films use, second, the lack of color, and third, the
creation of light on a computer, the removal of objects that make it
look like 2009 and not 1914, etc. Could a lot of that be done
photochemically? Yes, but like you're pointing out, it's more extensive.
And good for it.
We're now wholly unencumbered with what we can
do with our images. People are reacting poorly to that, but give it
time. We'll come up with new images, new ways of doing stuff, as soon as
we A) unbind ourselves from the aesthetic norms created by the
limitations of film, and B) lose this puerile infatuation some
photographers have developed with videogame imagery and return back to
the world. And we'll lie evermore and evermore honestly- just like we've
been lying totally since the first photographs. |
