1. According to the article photodynamism “analyses and synthesizes movement.” However, there is never really a clear definition given for “photodynamism” in the reading; since it is the title and the main focus of the article I thought beginning with a more concrete definition would be helpful. I will attempt to create one here. “Photo” sometimes means the reproduction of an event in time and “dynamism” (according to dictionary.com) is “the activeness of an energetic personality.” Thus, photodynamism can be considered the active and energetic reproduction of an event in time. It seems from the article that it is more a combination of philosophy or perception of photography and a distorted visual image of movement. This may seem very similar to art forms such as photography, chronophotography, cinematography, however, photodynamism appears to try to stay separate from the different forms of are that attempt to reproduce motion. This is because photodynamism “despise[s] the precise, mechanical, glacial reproduction of reality.
2. In an analogy using a clock it is stated that one sees little with chronophotography (only the “quarter hours”), a little more can be viewed with cinematography (the “minutes”), but with photodynamism you can see all the “intermovemental fractions… between seconds.” They are basically stating that Photodynamism is the most in depth way of viewing and thinking about motion. The strange part about using this analogy is that everything about a clock is mechanical which seems to be what photodynamism is trying to stay away from. In addition, a clock is an attempt to represent time, which can be considered something in constant motion or continuously changing. To me this analogy just seems contradictory to the ideals of photodynamism.
3. “For photodynamism, it is desirable and correct to record the images in a distorted state, since images themselves are inevitably transformed in movement… we prefer to see everything in motion, since as things are dematerialized in motion they become idealized, while still retaining, deep down, a strong skeleton of truth.” With these types of images it would be difficult to see what is/was actually there; however, if this is truly the best way of viewing things (as photodynamism argues) than maybe our minds are tricking us into believing that we see things still when we don’t. This type of argument reminds me a lot of Bergson in that photodynamism wants us to take a deeper look into the idea of motion and both (photodynamism and Bergson) are critical of film and different art forms of representation. Does this mean that photodynamism can be considered more accurate than our eyes? Since we can’t see the blur or “transformation in movement” maybe our eye work too slowly, or maybe this is intentional so we can make sense of the images that appear ‘clear’ to us since they “retain… a skeleton of truth.” Similar to what Bergson said, if everything were moving and we thought too much about motion we would probably go insane.
4. Throughout the style of writing appears to follow a pattern: most paragraphs begin by criticizing what one form of representation lacks (i.e. photography only allows the viewer to “move abruptly from on state to another”) and then does one of two things 1) describes how photodynamism does it better or 2) shows how photodynamism avoids doing the same thing (i.e. with photodynamism you can see the “intermovemental fractions… between seconds.”). By doing so, photodynamism proves how desperately they do not want to be grouped with the other art forms. However, aren’t they still creating a representation of movement even if it is not in a “precise [and] mechanical” way? Aren’t they just trying to understand motion better in order to create better representations of motion? “Now a knowledge of the paths traced by bodies in action and of their transformation in motion will be indispensable for the painter of movement.”
5. Another thing that I thought about was that Zeno would disagree with the entire paper simply by stating that motion does not exist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Laura brought up a really good point regarding the lack of a precise definition of Photodynamism in the passage. Bragaglia’s attempt to explain Photodynamism by comparisons of what it is not doesn’t seem to be the most effective way to convey this new art form. After reading the passage I felt compelled to google images of Photodynamism art works, which enhanced my understanding of Bragalia’s arguments. After looking at those pictures, I understand the difficulties of articulating the concept of Photodynamism, because the object that is captured by Photodynamism is not the point of the image. The purpose of Photodynamism is to invoke emotions through the image of an objective bystander.
The second paragraph brought up an interesting comparison that Bragalia mentioned in the passage. Contrary to Laura's view, I agree with the analogy that Photodynamism seems to capture the “intermovemental fractions” which is identified in the portion of a clock that is essentially the infinite duration between seconds. The clock seems to be the only objective common denominator that Bragalia could use to connect Photodynamism, photography, chronophotography, and cinematography without entering the realm of subjective interpretations of these “artistic” expressions, which Bragalia does argue later on in the article.
Cathy Hwang
After reading about Photodynamism, I had the same problem with it as Laura. What exactly is Photodynamism? As she says, there is no clear definition and it certainly is not given in the first few paragraphs. This frustrated me, and the way it was written overall frustrated me. Every paragraph seemed to meticulously pick at the other forms of photography, and insistently state that Photodynamism is not like that (as Laura agreed) but in fact better than that. However, the writer fails to give solid details as to why it's better, other than the fact that it causes "sensation" and covers more area of action.
Other than claiming to cause sensation, the writer says Photodynamism can reconstruct movements. By stating that other forms "overlook the trajectory", I assume the writer thinks that Photodynamism can capture all parts of it. But how can you possibly represent/calculate infinitesimal moments of movement without acknowledging that you must first capture all those moments, just as the other photographic processes do? It would make more sense if the writer stated that Photodynamism could capture 12 frames per second versus 8 frames per second, or some other solid reasoning than it makes you feel different seeing it.
Although the writer attempts to explain the differences in a physical example by comparing it to a clock, I must agree with Laura’s ideas. It does seem contradictory to choose a clock (with hands) because it never can calculate a smaller fraction than seconds. This example almost suggests that Photodynamism is physically impossible, and therefore is nothing but a theory. Perhaps that’s all it is, since a real definition was never given.
I think Laura makes an excellent point by arguing that maybe photodynamism can be considered more accurate than our eyes. To me it seems as if the author’s comparison of cinematography and photdynamism is sometimes contradictory. The author presents cinematography and Marey’s equivalent system as moving “abruptly from one state to another, and thus is limited to the states that compose the movement, without concern for the intermovemental states of the action,” and later moves on to describe Photodynamism as very desirable when recorded “in a distorted state, since images themselves are inevitably transformed in movement.” Because photodynamism does not skip over the intermovemental states, I get the impression that this gives a more realistic and clear experience than that of cinematography. The definition of distorted is, “not truly or completely representing the facts or reality; misrepresented” (dictionary.com). In my opinion this does not correspond to the way in which the author is describing photdynamism. Why, if photodynamism gives the intermovemental states, is it described as distorted?
Laura could have gone further in breaking down and pointing out major flaws/contradictions within this argument pattern. The author criticizes science for producing inaccurate models of movement with photography, cinematography, ect. The best example of this is when the author talks about the sinusoidal representation of a pendulum. This example in particular shows the author’s minute and fragmented understanding of science because there are very accurate physics models that take into account the wind resistance and friction that bring the pendulum to a stop. After bashing the “divisible” qualities of science, the author has the audacity to state that “we have conceived a method of research, highly original in its mechanical means,” inferring that we will use scientific methods to reach the answers. Let’s be honest, what can this guy do to achieve his figurative dream of how motion could be captured? Pretty much just speed up the rate of frames taken per unit of time on a film strip. In addition, he states that Photodynamism will produce a “representation of realistic movement” that is a much more effective than anything. But, the author goes on say that “our aim is to make a determined move away from reality.”
-Christopher Melgaard
Post a Comment