Consider the following when answering:
- Can they be compared?
- What does the image do to time or vice-versa?
- Is it possible to connote the passage of time via the image? Why or why not?
- What does your relationship between the two say about the effectiveness of the (photographic, filmic) image?
- Do you trust the photograph over other mediums as a reproduction of reality?
Also: You must comment on a minimum of two other posts (not this post) in order to receive full credit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think time and photography can be compared and contrasted. Photography depends on time and it captures precise moments with perfection. The image is removed from time, but the time is in no way dependent on the photograph. It keeps moving regardless. The mechanical cannot overcome the organic nor can it fully satisfy the human need to overcome time. It is not really possible to connote the passage of time via the image because the time of the aperture cannot capture a full story, nor can it capture the entire reality of the moment. It may be able to pick out every detail but it cannot truly satisfy our need for many things such as the full story, or objectivity, or to conquer time. I think that a photograph is only effective in showing the physical reality, but in real time we made see the truth and emotion of the reality that we experience. I think without the context or the memory the photo becomes almost a representation of fantasy because it is someone else' reality. I think my trust is relative to the age I'm living in. For instance, I will trust physical photographs, and old photographs but I do not trust as much in photography then the last generation due to the invention of photoshop.
ReplyDelete