Questions for Discussion 4

The Establishment of Physical Existence - Kracauer

Kracauer states that, "films are different in two ways: first they respect reality as it evolves; and do so with aid of cinematic techniques and devices." Their is much talk in the article of the idea of 'realism'. What makes film interesting as an art form is its ability to capture reality, even realities that we may never have the ability to experience.

Can reality possibly become problematic because of the capacity of film is to frame, interpret and shape the reality it depicts?

He goes on to state that, "not all films are realistic (filming someones activities for 24 hours) would be neither interesting nor artistic." This makes me think of current themes in television that deal in the realm of Reality TV. Though they undergo an editing process, they tend to have this 24 hours reality to them.

How is our cultures depiction of realism over time skewed from his interpretation, due to what we are subjected to (reality tv), and the fact that we do find these things interesting?

Film has the ability to inform us of everyday life and serve to document time and place and make connections between aspects of experiences that are often now thought together. "Film ought to proceed like a tourist who, in strolling through the landscape, lets his eyes wander about so that his ultimate image of it will be composed of sundry details and vistas."

What is it about the camera that when behind it begins to reveal the material world in a different perspective, that would otherwise go unnoticed?

If the camera is a tool for recording place, time, movement and event. Are there elements that become skewed and lost information due to the eye behind the camera and the editing process? Does the vision of the person filming begin to take over, in a way to get a specific message across (a 'lie')?

"Unlike paintings, film images encourage such decomposition because of their emphatic concern with raw materials do not get consumed." Kracauer could not of foreseen what the computers abilities and role it would have on film editing and how it is used to view the physical world.

With a few exceptions has film disintegrated into our culture, and in a way stopped exploring physical reality, and a world that is unknown? Or has the use of CGI and other digital technologies allowed us to have the opposite effect.?

It might be safe to say that film is the art of our generation, but with this in mind what if any are the problems with this? Is it causing social disconnect or manipulation and misinterpretation of our cultures?

Kracauer does not discuss the idea of mixed or hybrid medias. How can these types of mixed medias add to the linage of expanding the pictorial field?

How can using film techniques as a process make us (architects) multidimensional thinkers in search of new possibilities for cultural and environmental design?

How do you begin to translate and communicate moving image of space, inhabitation, perception, and experience that unfolds over time? (Creating 2 dimensional drawing systems)


Berger suggests that in the beginning of the camera age, people that were subjected to the camera were unaware of the images purpose, and the capacity with which the image would have over time, that is why old photographs are more telling then they are now.

Why is this? Is it because of our consumer driven society, and our relentlessness to pound product driven imagery for the sole purpose not for art but for selling us products?