A central theme in Benjamin's essay is the contrast between modern film technology and traditional art. He dedicates three sections to analogies of cameramen and artists to the comparison.
In section XI, Benjamin begins, "The shooting of a film, especially a sound film, affords a spectacle unimaginable anywhere at any time before this". Of course by "any time before this" he meant the 1920s, but I believe his theory is still applicable to modern technology. How does a painter compare with a cameraman? Benjamin compares painters to magicians healing. Magicians heal by use of their hands. They heal by keeping a natural distance only intruded upon by physically laying hands upon the patient, which gives them an "authority" over the patient. Similarly, the painter also works with a natural distance between him and his work.
The surgeon is total opposite the magician. He delves deep into the patient; the operation filled with intimate connection. He knows every detail of the patient. The cameraman is like the surgeon, diving into his work, getting every detail about every shot, taking his work fragment by fragment.
In section twelve, Benjamin gives us a little history about art. In the past, art was only enjoyed by the few who were fortunate enough to go see it. For example, only kings and queens owned the best of the art, and if one wanted to see the Mona Lisa, then they had to hop a plane to France and see it in the Louvre. Even in cinema, as Sontag points out, people had to go and see and appreciate film in the theatres. Technology has made art open to anyone. Now, all one has to do to see a painting is search a work on google images. And to see a movie, rent the DVD or even pirate it illegally off the Internet.
Section XIII deals with the perception between film and art. Film has enriched our field of perception with methods made available only through technology. Cameramen can be compared to psychoanalyst in that they break down every movement and detail and facial expression of what or who is being filmed. They can scrutinize and chose which shot they like the best to give us their representation of what is being filmed. In short, film is open to interpretation.
A painting, say one of the hummingbird, shown in this link http://www.jesuspaintings.com/pictures/flower_power.jpg, can only show us so much about the animal. The human eye cannot see what is going on between each beat of the wings. A painter can only speculate what it looks like. So Benjamin's theory that a painter chooses to keep a natural distance from what they are painting is only half true; they are forced, by human limitations, to stand at a distance.
Technology has made a full picture of a hummingbird, with every detail of what goes on between each beat of the wing, possible to grasp. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssrv89x7Q2U High definition, slow motion camera eludes all mystery as to how the hummingbird hovers and how many times it's wing beat in a second.
We only see vague detail of the hummingbird in the painting. Clearly, the artist struggled with the painting. The feathers have less-than-impressive detail and the wings are streaked as if the the artist didn't know how to paint them. Probably because she had never benefited from modern technology and seen the bird in a crystal clear picture of film.
No comments:
Post a Comment