Memory, history and digital imagery in contemporary film (original) (raw)
Related papers
Cantoni, Lorenzo & James A. Danowski (eds.), Communication and Technology (Handbooks of Communication Science, vol. 5), Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton, 2015
The relationship between cinema and technology has been present since the very inception of motion pictures, looking to offer a more immersive and believable experience. This chapter presents a comprehensive compilation of key scholarly literature – mainly in the English language – while identifying some of the theoretical issues, emerging concepts, current and further research, as well as lists of references with regard to this topic. In order to accomplish this task, it is divided into three main sections. The first one focuses on the relationship between the arts and technology, and specifically between cinema and the arts, and between cinema and technology. The middle section draws a brief historical sum- mary on the technological development of the (audio)visual media, moving from the primitive canvas to the first photographic plates and from the birth of cinema to the digital image. Finally, the third part is a synthesis of some of the most relevant theoretical and critical issues regarding the imbrication of art, technology and cinema, all of it in the words of well-known experts and scholars. An epilogue with some final thoughts closes this chapter
Simulating the Past. Digital Preservation of Moving Images and the ‘End of Cinema’
In the past decade, the discourse around digital cinema has flourished and given birth to a long series of ontological and phenomenological reflections around the status of the medium in the digital age. Can digital cinema still be called ‘cinema?’. Does cinema conserve its indexical nature, or is digital cinema just a simulation? What are the effects of the proliferation of screens, and the consequent loss of the centrality of movie theaters as the place for consumption of moving images? With my essay, I would like to investigate the status of digital preservation within the world of digital cinema. How is digital preservation different from analog preservation, if at all? And how are digitally restored moving images different from a film shot digitally? If a digital image is a simulation of reality, rather than a trace left by it (as the analog image supposedly was), what is the status of the digitization of an analog photographic image? I will argue that digital preservation forces us to reconsider the analog-digital opposition, and provides a framework through which to rethink not only the present state of cinema, but also its past and the future of its history.
CINEMATIC EXPERIENCES AND THE DIGITAL MOVING IMAGE
This research arises from the debate related to the nature of the cinema being closely linked and defined by its film support, according to which its permanence in time would be in danger as a result of the introduction of the digital. Also discusses if new forms of digitally mediated moving image, such as interactive CD-ROM's, art installations and net art can be considered new forms of cinema. With this purpose, the cinema historical background were studied in order to determine his origin and identify the essential in the cinematographic experience. The cinema is found to be born with the cinematograph, and this invention, along with the notions of industrialization and entertainment, is what defines its nature. It is concluded in this study that if the introduction of the digital does not alter the cinematographic device (production, distribution and exhibition), neither transform or change any of the essential features of the cinema (to be index or trace of reality, the projection of moving images, the fact of being a spectator, the fascination for the big screen, the dark room, the immobility and the desire to tell), then the production of digital moving image will not affect the cinema essence. Otherwise, the state of simulation will be passing to exploration, enabled by the digital features of the moving image and we will have to stop talking about cinema to make ways for the cinematic experiences concept proposed in this research, defined as moving image production, digitally mediated, potentially requiring action seeking its essence in the awareness of movement and visual rhythms. Its birth is determined in 1963 with the "Exposition of Music - Electronic Television" of Nam Jun Paik. As a part of the study the characteristics of digital moving images were identified which are the foundation of cinematic experiences: no longer index or trace of reality; allows to simulate reality by mathematics; is in potency to be continuously; open creative possibilities in dialogue with the machine; blur the notion of authorship; its immateriality does not imply nor guarantee its durability in time; it's a numerical representation; can be produced, recognized and indexed by automated processes; its variability which is intrinsic allows it to be interactive; be able to permeate the cultural layer. In the aesthetics of cinematic experiences, camera is not more needed as a main production device of the moving image; the Renaissance frame and the dark room are exceeded as the ideal projection place of these images; notions of narrative, mounting and framing are no longer primordial; and spectators can become spectators-actors involving in the visual proposal or interacting with digital characters. The digital modify effectively the way the moving images are produced, to the point of rethinking the "illusion of movement" that cinematograph instituted more than one hundred years ago.
2019
Bazin, Cavell and other prominent theorists have asserted that movies are essentially photographic, with more recent scholars such as Carroll and Gaut protesting. Today CGI stands as a further counter, in addition to past objections such as editing, animation and blue screen. Also central in debates is whether photography is transparent, that is, whether it allows us to see things in other times and places. I maintain photography is transparent, notwithstanding objections citing digital manipulation. However, taking a cue from Cavell—albeit one poorly outlined in his work—I argue this is not so much because of what photography physically is, but because of what “photography” has come to mean. I similarly argue digital technologies have not significantly altered what cinematic media “are” because they have not fundamentally modified what they mean; and that cinema retains a photographic legacy, even when it abandons photographic technologies to digitally manufacture virtual worlds. Cavell, CGI, Cinema, Digital Technology, Photography, Transparency Thesis