Susan Sontag says, "A photograph passes for incontrovertible proof that a given thing happened. The picture may distort; but there is the presumption that something exists, or did exist, which is like what is in the picture" (5). The same can be said for motion picture. From this perspective, a photograph or piece of motion picture film documents a piece of history.
Of course both photographs and motion pictures are problematic primary forms of historical evidence due to the ease of their manipulation. Historians and archivists have been traditionally slow to use them without collaboration from other types of documents. However, it is important to note that this attitude is shifting. As Walter Rundell Jr. puts it in his article "Photographs as Historical Evidence," "A basic consideration in using photographs as historical documents is that each picture should offer some evidence that relates to the project. Photographs must be considered an integral part of the evidence, not just illustrations" (345). If the biases behind photographs and motion picture film are considered on par with the point of view of a traditional document creator, then there should be no reason for photographs and motion picture film to not be considered viable sources of evidence.
Now the question at hand is which one, photographs or motion picture, is more reliable. Unfortunately there is no clear cut answer. However considering that the perspective on images for this blog posts is as historical evidence, then examining the uses of motion picture versus the uses of photographs as a clue into their effectiveness.
One area in which motion picture seems to dominate is political campaigns and elections. Perhaps in this case it is because part of the purpose of motion picture to to express a message and distinguish a candidate from his or her opponents. "In a media-saturated environment in which news, opinions, and entertainment surround us all day on our television sets, computers, and cell phones, the television commercial remains the one area where presidential candidates have complete control over their images" (The Living Room Candidate).
Also if a candidate missteps or misspeaks, motion picture can be used as fodder for the opposition as reliable evidence of the candidate's incompetency. For example, Former Governor Mitt Romney's "Binders Full of Women" comment haunted the rest of his campaign and made him seem out of touch with women voters.
Photographs, at least in the modern political sphere, do not seem to hold the same evidential position for political campaigns as motion picture. Again, perhaps it is because of the connection between person and message that gives motion picture its edge.
War images, by contrast, seem to be almost completely dominated by photography as evidence of the event. Susan Sontag in her article "Looking at War" makes the observation while discussing the unique role of war photography as evidence, "Non-stop imagery (television, streaming video, movies) surrounds us, but, when it comes to remembering, the photograph has the deeper bite. Memory freeze-frames; its basic unit is the single image. In an era of information overload, the photograph provides a quick way of apprehending something and a compact form for memorizing it" (4). So when it comes to tragedy and chaos, a photograph is harder to ignore.
 |
| Photograph taken by Frank Capa during the Spanish Civil War 1936-1939 |
This principle of shock value that Sontag introduces applies to other violent conflicts as well, such as the Tienanmen Square protests.
 |
| "Tank Man" by Jeff Widener, AP |
These photographs solidify in our minds in a way that motion picture cannot because they allow for the observer to make their own mind up about the situation. They don't just shock and awe, but also encourage discussion and action. Motion picture, by contrast, has an accompanying message that sometimes manipulates the observer. When looking at a photograph, the observer doesn't necessarily want to feel manipulated but more desires a seemingly impartial window into the situation.
While both photographs and motion picture provide historical evidence, perhaps their uses and impact allow for them to be used in different situations.
Works Cited
Burke, Peter. Eyewitnessing: The Uses of Images as Historical Evidence. London: Reakton 2001.
The Living Room Candidate. http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/
Rundell, Walter Jr. "Photographs as Historical Evidence: Early Texas Oil." The American Archivist Vol. 41 No. 4 October 1968. http://archivists.metapress.com/content/n2076w2w67588011/fulltext.pdf
Sontag, Susan. "Looking at War." The New Yorker Issue of 2002-12-09.
Sontag, Susan. On Photography. New York: Picador 1977.
All photographs came from Google searches and all motion picture video came from Youtube.
No comments:
Post a Comment