In this article, Margaret Mead is arguing with fellow Anthropologist Gregory Bateson about the use of a camera in obtaining information. The two types of camera use that are being disputed are still photography(camera fixed on a tripod and not moved) and filming off a tripod(photographer holds camera and moves around). Mead argues that still photographs, taken in the exact same place for a set period of time, are most useful because they reveal things going on in the background as well as the foreground. She also believes that in order to capture the image of something interesting you have to wait for it. Bateson, on the other hand, believes that the photographer should move the camera to places of interest, where things are happening at that very moment. He states that the camera will not detect anything at all if it is held down by the tripod.
I agree most with Bateson in regards to this dispute. While I do admit that sometimes it is better to stay in one area and wait for something to occur, I think that the camera's true potential is severely limited when it is mounted on a tripod and stuck in one position. If the camera is sitting on a tripod then all it is doing is capturing light and displaying an image to be analyzed. If the camera can move around, however, then it is able to explore different viewpoints, environments, and aspects of the surrounding area. This means that the camera will view and interact with a lot more than it would if it were stationary.
Another reason why I support Bateson's viewpoint is because I think that having the camera move around freely can avoid making someone observing the images feel detached. By having the photographer move the camera around, you're not only seeing more of what's happening, but you're also seeing the photographer's point of view because he is the one deciding what to film and how to film it. This can make an observer feel like he is actually exploring the place within the photograph himself. Evidence of this can be seen from movies like The Blair Witch Project and other horror films, which use the camera to create an additional point of view for viewers to make the experience seem more realistic. This technique is used frequently in films today, thus demonstrating how effective it really is.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree that the camera's potential is limited when it stayis in one place, set up on a tripod, and that there is much more use that can be got out of it if you move about. However, as Margaret Mead was saying, then it becomes art and you are seeing the photographers viewpoint and what he thinks instead of what is actually happening. I agree with Mead in that for anthropological research, setting up the camera on a tripod is the most effective means of study. If you do that, you can set up the tripod in the same place on several different days and compare the activities that go on in the same place on different days side by side. Perhaps that is too cold and analytical, and maybe setting the camera on a tripod doesnt capture whats "human" about the scene, but I agree that if the photographer moves around you are seeing more what he wants you to see than what is going on. The lens is no longer the camera's, it is the photographers, and we are seeing what he sees and what he thinks. I think that moving the camera around makes it harder for the audience to form their own opinions.
The camera's true beauty is the ability to capture images objectively. Unfortunately, humans are the operators of such devices, and thus, objectivity is impossible. It does not matter whether or not the camera is on a tripod or not. The photographer still has to decide what to shoot, and how to shoot it. The arbitrary nature of photography in effect classifies the large majority of photographs as art. However, for the sake of this argument, I do believe that leaving the camera on a tripod for an extended period of time is a more accurate way to portray reality. The moving camera cannot capture life as it truly is, it is busy capturing only that which can be sensationalized. - theronblog
It doesn't matter if the camera is on a tripod or if it is hand-held, the director (anthropologist) always has the option of editing it. And if they dont edit it, they can put a voice over on it, like in Mead's film, "In Bali". The perfect way to shoot an anthropological film would be to have both long tripod scenes and moving scenes without a voice over and nothing at all to taint the viewer's opinion. It sounded like both Bateman and Mead are blowing hot air in their argument because I'm sure all of their movies show only what they want to be shown or are tainted in some way.
Post a Comment