There's something strange about pictures I noticed tonight.
After cooling off from a rant about how TV-cum-Internet video stations try to sell video without using the strengths of video at all and make you sit through an ad or two followed by inane chatter about whatever issue they think is the most broadly relevant... Actually, I'm bridging into that rant again. Suffice it to say, what can be transmitted in a few sentences is often, despite video's inherent strength in transmission of information, often completely neglected in video.
But as I was trying to transmit before being sidetracked, there is something about pictures; photographs in particular seem to slow down time. There are many other pictures which accomplish the same thing, but for now I'm focusing on photographs.
Video in contrast is centered on the movement of the universe. It can make time seem fast or slow but it is always about movement.
I'd rather not expound lengthily on the difference between the timeless and the movement in time or the slowing of it. I don't believe photos stop time any more than wanting to stop time stops time. In fact it seems more than pointless to believe anything. But I've written about that before.
What I'm writing about here is that in a photo the observer is implicitly invited to examine the photo, whereas in a video the viewer is implicitly expected to follow the movement of the imagery, of the story, of the video.
Not that there's anything bad about either one, it's just something I've noticed. Happy December! :)
After cooling off from a rant about how TV-cum-Internet video stations try to sell video without using the strengths of video at all and make you sit through an ad or two followed by inane chatter about whatever issue they think is the most broadly relevant... Actually, I'm bridging into that rant again. Suffice it to say, what can be transmitted in a few sentences is often, despite video's inherent strength in transmission of information, often completely neglected in video.
But as I was trying to transmit before being sidetracked, there is something about pictures; photographs in particular seem to slow down time. There are many other pictures which accomplish the same thing, but for now I'm focusing on photographs.
Video in contrast is centered on the movement of the universe. It can make time seem fast or slow but it is always about movement.
I'd rather not expound lengthily on the difference between the timeless and the movement in time or the slowing of it. I don't believe photos stop time any more than wanting to stop time stops time. In fact it seems more than pointless to believe anything. But I've written about that before.
What I'm writing about here is that in a photo the observer is implicitly invited to examine the photo, whereas in a video the viewer is implicitly expected to follow the movement of the imagery, of the story, of the video.
Not that there's anything bad about either one, it's just something I've noticed. Happy December! :)
