George Baker... where to begin. Well since it has become second nature for us to deal with these blog posts like band-aids with the single mind-track-motion of RIGHT OFF!!!, I will leave out everything worth analyzing and just put in here whatever crap comes to mind the fastest.
George Baker says that the problem today is not that the term photography has been stretched beyond its limits, but that photography has become abandoned, and "technologically outmoded"; but if cinema has been wrongly categorized as photography, and yet the problem is that photography has been replaced by cinema or what have you, then is it possible to conclude that the problem of abandoning photography is caused by the fact that we consider photography and cinema to be the same? In other words, if us thinking of cinema as the new photography, and this in turn causes us to focus on cinema instead, then isn't the "technological outmoding" caused by this seemingly non-problematic issue of bad categorization? If something "not problematic" is the CAUSE of a problem, then doesn't that make the cause problematic?
Question 2, as 1 was not numbered but who pays attention to the gory details anyway if they're just flesh wounds:
Why did it have to end the way it ended? Was there really no point to Baker's piece other than to (try as he might to) justify his first essay that he alluded to, where the two notions of narrativity and stasis were probably criticised for being counterintuitive and so a comeback was somewhere in view? Don't you think a name like Half Baker prepares us better mentally than just "George"?
Oh yeah and intermedia... but who cares, because I'm done!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment