Fall 2012 Tu/Th History of Photography

I must admit that I belong to the group of people that believed some of the fake photographs. I was and still am super thankful to God that in my area it was not bad at all during Hurricane Sandy. We didn’t even lose power, the lights only flickered about 3 times. I had the news on the whole time and was online too; I saw a photograph of plenty New Jersey taxi cars from Hoboken, floating in water as well as a photograph of a shark swimming in a flooded area. My initial response to the taxi cars was pure belief; I immediately felt saft for the  Hoboken, NJ  area and I remembered going there last month to visit Carlo’s Bakery. The shark photograph had me in doubt, part of me believed the photograph and another part of me questioned its truth, but still I was unsure. Now that it has come to light that there were many fake photographs and clips posted online about Hurricane Sandy, I think that it is not right. Sure its funny, but it’s only funny for those of us who barely suffered during Sandy and its aftermath. There are many in areas very close to us who have suffered much damage, pain and loss because of this natural disaster; because of them I don’t find it appropriate that people posted fake photographs. The fake photographs seem like a mockery of what Hurricane Sandy was doing and it is inappropriate that people did this because Hurricane Sandy did cause major flooding and damage in certain areas; example: there’s real footage on the News showing people on inflatable boats in Staten Island, because their area actually flooded that much; because of situations like these, I find it highly unnecessary that people made fake pictures of taxi cars being flooded as if something that bad wasn’t happening in other areas with peoples own cars.

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&sa=N&tbo=d&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&biw=1224&bih=627&tbm=isch&tbnid=xdS4MgaZSvIwjM:&imgrefurl=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/10/pictures/hurricane-sandy-pictures-floods-fire-snow-in-the-aftermath/&docid=yOkS48kj8ITirM&imgurl=http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/607/cache/hurricane-superstorm-sandy-hits-taxi_60731_600x450.jpg&w=600&h=399&ei=KRWbULCWH5Pp0QHQnYGoAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=323&vpy=331&dur=1138&hovh=183&hovw=275&tx=200&ty=139&sig=117302779429270553528&page=1&tbnh=144&tbnw=208&start=0&ndsp=16&ved=1t:429,r:12,s:0,i:113

During Hurricane Sandy and right after it, I myself did not feel it was funny to make fun of what happened with mocking photographs, as others did. Instead, I felt the need to make my own documentation of it. I felt and feel grateful to be alive and safe while at the same time feeling sad for those who lost loved ones, or damaged their homes, or cars. My main response was to make 2 short videos, I posted them on youtube. Feel free to take a look:

Hurricane Sandy in Brooklyn, Bensonhurst, ZONE C

Hurricane Sandy’s Aftermath in Bensonhurst, Brooklyn, NY, near Ceasar’s Bay

I never even thought that during the 1900s science fiction movies were being produced, nor that I would ever get the chance to watch the first science fiction movie ever.  Watching this short film was something I’ve never experienced in my life; I wasn’t so sure what to expect out of this film in terms of quality and fiction, but once the short film began, all of my intrigues and doubts were proven wrong.  There are several aspects of this movie that are worth discussing, because in one way or another, the idea of this movie was to promote and show people something different from what they were used to at that time. One of the things that is something important to talk about was the use different scenarios and characters that played an important role in the development of this movie.  Also, the use of science fiction which was one of the most fundamental improvements at that time; where people (artist, filmmakers, photographer) started to have  different ideas or concepts about creating illusional films and images to entertain the public and make a living out of it.

There are a handful of similar aspects between film and early photography.  One is the same static use of the camera; and just like the early photography where cameras were motionless, while capturing images, landscapes and portraits; the production of film employed the same technique where no radical movements were used.  Moreover, photography and film were quite different in terms of production and development; where photography used no movement, film was the opposite where everything being shot required different posses of the characters to create a different scene.  Additionally,  another similarity that both, the camera and film shared, was the idea to entertain, persuade and sell their products to the public through this two mediums different, but similar in terms of the evolution of technology.

A Trip to the Moon is one of the first known science fiction films. The scenes are very elaborate and complete with painted backdrops and are constructed in a similar way as those of the Lumière Brothers. They both have complex, layered, contrapuntal motion playing out before a static camera, which represents the audience’s point of view as they watch the action unfold on a “stage”. Unlike the short films made by the Lumière Brothers which tended to capture a “natural” event, one that shows scenes of daily and familiar occurrence, Méliès tries to see how far he can push the fantastical and the end result is a film that is much an example of surrealism rather then naturalism.

Also, this film reminds me of a tableau vivant style, where a group of suitably costumed  actors or artist’s models are carefully posed and theatrically lit. There is one big difference though, the film has a more developed story and is filled with action where the actors don’t freeze in motion for the duration of the time.  Whereas in a tableau vivant the people shown do not speak or move throughout the duration of time. The approach thus marries the art forms of the stage with those of painting or photography, and as such it has been of interest to modern photographers.

A Trip to the Moon uses multiple exposures onto a plate. It also uses special effects such as the scene where the spaceship lands in the moon’s eye. There is one unusual choice which shows an action twice in different ways. When the astronomers land on the lunar surface, the same event is shown twice and very differently. The first time it is shown crashing into the eye of the man in the moon and the second time it is shown landing on the moon’s flat terrain.

Photographic cameras use memory to store the images, and can be uploaded to a computer, ipod, etc. whereas, film camera’s use the old film canisters and have to be developed (taken to the store).  They are similar because they both contain a lens which is positioned in the middle, a flash, and both have a similar body shape .They also have view finders.

Documenting anything that has any relevance to religion is always going to be difficult.  There will always be controversy because there are always two sides to religions, and whether someone believes in a certain religion there will always be someone who will have something to say and spark some sort of controversy.  Now, the possibility of capturing such events is shown in the photos, but the real question is whether or not they are real, and judging by the looks of the photos, they look real.  As for its value, a lot can be learned from looking at a religious photo, sometimes it is shown in a way that can’t be seen in person, it might shed some light and reveal something that can’t be seen first-handed.  Now is this type of documentation of this religion intrusive, Yes, religion can be intrusive because some people treat their religion as a private matter and if the audience viewing this content happens to be sensitive about the way they are portraying Vodou and are putting them in the wrong light, they might cause all sorts of conflict resulting in a not so pleasant aftermath.  Photographing religion can cause more difficulties than the chances of getting successful photos, but if risks are taken and religion is documented in the form of photography, then the result is an visual experience that can’t be seen anywhere else.

The fact that this film was made is wonderful. To us it seems boring and ridiculous to some point, but that’s only because we have been born into a world where film isn’t a big deal. With so much technology around us, new technology doesn’t surprise us at all; instead when something new in technology arises, we almost receive it as if its finally here because instead of being surprised we have been expecting it all along.

This film in particular is important because it was the first science fiction film made. But to me the “science fiction” aspect of the whole trip to the moon, was only an added element that added humor to the film; different to what a science fiction film of today would be like.

Do any aspects of the film recall the practices of early photography? This film definitely recalls practices of early photography. The camera stays at the same place for an entire scene. There is no tilting or zooming or panning with the camera; instead it steadily stays in place while the scene goes on in front of the camera.

What are some differences and similarities between the photographic camera and the film camera? The similarities are the ones mentioned above. As for the differences, the photographic camera involved images that implied movement or implied an acted scene, such as photos that mimicked old paintings; the film camera on the other hand, actually shows movement and a scene from an act isn’t just a snapshot, but instead continuous snapshots where one can follow the movement as the act is being played in front of our eyes.

Overall, I enjoyed the video because I think that although to our minds these kinds of videos are generally boring, there is still a sense of humor that doesn’t exist anymore. Back in the day when things were still being discovered and invented, there was a humor and an enjoyment in the little inventions that we no longer have today; because today everything is invented; technology is taken advantage of rather than seen as spectacular as it was seen back when it was first being discovered.

There are many difficulties when it comes to documenting religious experiences. In fact not only is it sometimes difficult to document religious, but also when you read about a child getting raped, murder or abused. Base on the reader themselves do they want to know the truth? Can they handle the reality of the world? Especially to the people who believe in religion, different religion has different believe whether they believe in spirituals or not. The point in documenting information is to reveal the truth, but what if no one interested? Not everyone is interested in religious spirituals especially if that isn’t your religion or something you’re curious about. Religious documentation is possible. There are many opinions if it’s valuable or intrusive, to me I can agree and disagree. It’s good to know real facts about different religious practices; it’s always good to know the history behind a culture. I don’t believe it’s intrusive at all if it’s based on facts, though the photo did kind of look creepy the way their eyes look. The photographs that were documented showed use what they practically did and practices for their religion. As a reader you can choose whether or not if you want to read it or not, but ever religion believe in different practices and Gods.

Spiritual Photography is basically attempting to capture the images of ghost and other things having spiritual characteristics. Shannon Taggart, a contemporary photographer, did a photo series in which she focused on different types of religious experiences. On of these experiences included Haitians practicing Vodou in Brooklyn. Her series displayed the ways people were reacting to spirits and how they would try to draw the spirit out of the person.
I completely understand why spiritual photography had difficulty being published. Not everyone is interested or comfortable with the topic because it has to do with death, ghosts, things that seem unreal, and that are questioned by many. In my perspective i think spiritual photography should be kept underground and available to the people involved with it. i believe this because not everyone wants to be associated with spirits and vodou. I say this because i felt an uneasiness going through Taggart’s series. I also feel that such documentation is impossible. I believe in spirits to a certain point but i do not believe that they are able to be photographed. I also don’t believe this type of photography is valuable. I think it is a waste of time and creepy and people should just leave it alone.

Early cinematography certainly had a good footing with the help of the early photography. Judging from the way camera was used, cinematography was considered to be just an extension to the photography, and not a distinct enterprise it is today.

In the “Trip to the Moon” I have noticed a few techniques that were previously used by photographers in the past. Staging was first used by Bayard in “Self-Portrait as a Drowned Man”; set of “before and after” images was used by Thibault in “Revolution of 1848”; double exposure was used in Spirit Photography; backdrop were used by Rejlander in “The Two Ways of Life”.

Besides the technical aspects, both photography and cinematography were similar in the goal they were meant to achieve: entertainment and self-expression. Entertainment in the movie, as well in the photography, for instance in “The Fresh View Agent soliciting”, is achieved by the storyline. The difference is that in the photography, the narrative and its resolution is often left to the imagination of the viewer, while in the movie it is usually expressed. Self-expression… well, that’s another story.

Aside from all similarities, cinematography is very different due to its limitations, as well as possibilities photography can’t offer. Storyline can be extensive, capturing viewer’s attention indefinitely; movie can be as mysterious as a photograph, but more explicit then any still image.