20080208
20080207
(re)post #6 "...just listen to your eyes."
© WIM WENDERS, "To Shoot Pictures", in "ONCE", NY, 2001
"
To shoot pictures.
Taking pictures is an act in time,
in which something is snapped out of its own time
and transferred into a different kind of duration.
It is commonly assumed
that whatever is captured in this act
lies IN FRONT OF the camera.
But that is not true.
Taking pictures is an act in two directions:
Forwards
AND backwards.
Yes, taking pictures also "backfires".
This isn't even too lame a comparison.
Just as the hunter lifts his rifle,
aims at the deer in front of him,
pulls the trigger,
and, when the bullet departs from the muzzle,
is thrown backwards by the recoil,
the photographer, likewise, is thrown backwards,
onto himself,
when releasing the shutter.
A photograph is always a double image,
showing, at first glance, its subject,
but at a second glance - more or less visible,
"hidden behind it", so to speak,
the "reverse angle":
the picture of the photographer
in action.
Just as the hunter is not struck by the bullet, though,
but only feels the recoil of the explosion,
this counter-image contained in every photograph
is not actually captured by the lens, either.
(Yet it remains somehow inextricably in the picture,
as an invisible impression of the photographer
that even gets developed within the dark room chemistry…)
What then is the recoil of the photographer?
How do you feel its impact?
How does it affect the subject
and which trace of it appears on the photograph?
In German, there is a most revealing word
for this phenomenon,
a word known from a variety of contexts:
"EINSTELLUNG".
It means the attitude
in which someone approaches something,
psychologically or ethically,
i.e. the way of attuning yourself
and then "taking it in".
But "Einstellung" is also a term from photography and film
signifying both the "take" (a particular shot and its framing),
as well as how the camera is adjusted
in terms of the aperture and exposure
by which the cameraman "takes" the picture.
It is no coincidence
that (at least in German) the same word defines both
the attitude
and the picture thus produced.
Every picture indeed
reflects the attitude
of whoever took it.
So the rifleman's recoil
corresponds to the photographer's portrait
that is more or less visible "behind the picture,
only instead of capturing his (or her) features,
it defines the photographer's ATTITUDE
towards whatever was in front of him (or her).
The camera therefore is an eye
capable of looking forward and backward
at the same time.
Forwards, it does in fact "shoot a picture,
backwards, it records a vague shadow,
sort of an x-ray of the photographer's mind,
by looking straight through his (or her) eye
to the bottom of his (or her) soul.
Yes, forwards, a camera sees its subject,
backwards it sees the wish
to capture this particular subject in the first place,
thereby showing simultaneously THE 'I'HINGS
and THE DESIRE for them.
Every second,
somewhere in the world,
someone releases a shutter
capturing something
because he (or she) is fascinated by a certain LIGHT
or FACE
or GESTURE
or LANDSCAPE
or MOOD
or simply because a SITUATION
wants to me captured.
The subjects of photography,
Obviously,
Are countless,
Multiplied to infinity by every second thet passes.
Still, each and every moment of picture-taking,
Wherever in the world it takes place,
Is a single event,
Its uniqueness
Guaranteed by the incessant progress of time.
(Even the zillions of tourists snapshots
at those specially assigned “photo opportunities”
are each a one-time only event.
Even in its most trivial and commonplace moments
Time remains irreversible.)
What is astonishing with each and every photograph
Is not so much that it “freezes time”
- as people commonly think -
but that on the contrary
time proves with every picture anew
HOW unstoppable and perpetual it is.
Every photograph is a memento mori.
Every photograph talks about life and death.
Every “picture captured” as an aura of sacredness,
Transcends the eye of its photographer,
And exceeds all human capacity:
Every photo is also an act of creation
Outside of time,
from God’s perspective, so to speak,
recalling that increasingly forgotten commandment:
“Thou shalt not graven images”
To take pictures
(rather: to have the incredible privilege of taking pictures)
is “too good to be true”.
But just as well it is
too true to be good.
Taking pictures is always an act of presumption
and rebellion.
Taking pictures thus quickly instils greed
And so much less often modesty.
(That is the reason why the attitude of “bragging”
is much more common in photography
than the attitude of “humbleness”.)
If, thus, a camera shoots in two directions,
forward and backward
merging both pictures
so that the “back” dissolves in tne “front”,
it allows the photographer
at the very moment of shooting
to be in front with the subjects,
rather than separated from them.
Through the “viewfinder”
The view can step out of his shell
to be “on the other side”
of the world,
and thereby remember better, understand better,
see better,
hear better,
and love more deeply.
(and, alas, despise more deeply, too.
The “evil eye”, after all, exists as well.)
Within every photograph
There is also the beginning of a story
Starting with “Once upon a time…”.
Every photograph is the first frame of a movie.
Often the next moment,
the next realease of the shutter a few steps further on,
the subsequent image, that is,
is already tracing this story’s progress
in its very own space
and its very own time.
So over the years, at least to me,
taking pictures has more and more turned
into “tracing stories”.
(This is why this book
contains more series of pictures
than single stills.)
With every second picture the “montage” is already on the way,
And the story that as announced itself in the first piscture
is now moving into its own direction,
defining its sense of space
and portending its sense of time.
Sometimes new actors appear,
sometimes the alleged lead
proves to be just a supporting part,
and sometimes no person at all is at the centre,
but a landscape.
I firmly believe
In the story-building power
of landscapes.
There are landscapes,
be them cities, deserts, mountains or coasts,
that literally cry out for “their stories” to be told.
They evoke them, even make them happen.
Landscapes can be leading characters themselves
and the people in it the extras.
I believe just as firmly
in the narrative power of props.
An open newspaper, casually lying in the corner of a photograph,
can relate so much!
A billboard in the background!
The rusty car
protruding into one side of the picture!
A chair!
Standing there in such a way
that someone must have been sitting on it only moments ago!
An open book on a table
With half of its title legible!
The empty cigarette box on the sidewalk!
The coffee cup with the spoon in it!
On photographs, THINGS can be serene or sad,
even comic or tragic.
Let alone clothes!
In many pictures, they are the most interesting part.
The sagging sock on a child’s ankle!
The turned-up collar of a man
Who can only see from behind!
Sweat stains!
Creases!
Patches darned and mended!
Missing buttons!
A crispy ironed shirt!
A woman’s life
all summarized in her dress,
Her entire life showing in the suffering of a dress!
A person’s drama
conveyed by a coat!
Clothes indicate the temperature of a picture,
the date,
the time of day,
Time of war or time of peace.
And all of it appears in front of the camera just ONCE,
and every photograph turns this ONCE into an eternity.
Only THROUGH
the captured picture does time become visible
and in the tome span
BETWEEN the first shot and the second
The story emerges,
a story that, were it not for these pictures,
would have slipped into oblivion
for the same eternity.
Just as we want to disappear,
at the very moment of taking the picture,
out into the world
and into the things,
the world and the things now leap out of the photograph
at the beholder,
seeking to survive and to last there.
It is “THERE” that the stories come about,
In the eye
of the beholder.
I hope
this photobook
will become a storybook.
It isn’t yet –
But it can become one
if you just listen to your eyes.
"
© WIM WENDERS, "To Shoot Pictures", in "ONCE", NY, 2001
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
20080202
20080201
AMAMOS A VIA VERDE
[Ana Garcia Martins, in TIMEOUT, Terça-feira, 29 de Janeiro de 2008]
Uma pessoa pensa em Via Verde (VV, para simplificar) e quase tem vontade de largar a cantar, de tantas alegrias que nos dá. Para começar, é uma invenção portuguesa. Bem, para sermos honestos, se fizermos uma pesquisa no Google ele revela que é tudo uma farsa, porque vai-se a ver e o primeiro sistema do género foi inventado na Noruega uns bons anos antes de cá chegar. Mas andaram anos a dizer-nos que era uma invenção nossa, aceitámos os louros, por isso venham de lá os espertinhos dos noruegueses de patente na mão, a ver se têm coragem de nos contrariar.
Bom, mas dizíamos nós que amamos a VV. E porquê? Ponto1: portagens. Enquanto os tansos que pagam a dinheiro ficam ali na fila a rogar pragas, a malta da VV é sempre a andar. E lá volta a vontade de cantar, desta feita um “e ninguém pára o meu carro, allez-oohhhh!”. Ponto 2: parques de estacionamento. É só vantagens: não é preciso ganhar mofo nas filas para as máquinas, não é preciso andar à procura de moedas em todos os bolsos e mais alguns (ou, pior, ter que pedir 10 cêntimos ao senhor atrás de nós e que fica a pensar que é mas é para a droga) e, maravilha das maravilhas, nem sequer é preciso ver quanto é que foi a despesa.
A pessoa encosta o carro à cancela, espera que aquilo abra e ala que se faz tarde. Só volta a pensar no caso um mês depois, quando a factura chegar a casa. Ponto 3: bombas de gasolina. É que não há nada que pague o facto de não ter de se ir para a fila apanhar com aquela gente que faz as compras do mês nas estações de serviço. Obrigada, senhores (portugueses!) que inventaram a VV. Um grande bem-haja, sim?
20080131
What font says 'Change'?
TYPOGRAPHY CAN subtly or boldly define a company, product, or person. Whether it is Best Buy's big, bold, screaming signs or the sweet, elegant script on a wine label, the type talks to us, the reader. The logos of the presidential candidates are no exception.
Clinton
The Hillary type palette is far from fresh and colorful; it is begging for legitimacy instead of demanding respect. It projects recycled establishment. The type has a tired feeling, as if the ink has been soaking into the page too long. The Hillary logo has the look of an '80s newspaper layout or an investment company. The tall lower-case reminds me of someone with their pants pulled up too high. I wonder about the significance of the three stars and three stripes. A third term?
Edwards
Edwards is the only candidate to use a sans serif typeface for his main typeface. Sans serif typefaces do not have the added elements at the ends of the vertical and horizontal strokes. Unlike many of the traditional sans serifs used in campaigns, Edwards's typeface is open and friendly. It's utilitarian. In past campaigns, Edwards used a serif typeface. Perhaps he is subtly distancing himself from his unsuccessful 2004 bid. The Edwards type is very Wal-Mart, tabloid, middle class. Not a whiff of high-powered lawyer.
Obama
Obama's type is contemporary, fresh, very polished and professional. The serifs are sharp and pointed; clean pen strokes evoke a well-pressed Armani suit. The ever-present rising sun logo has the feeling of a hot new Internet company. His sans serifs conjure up the clean look of Nike or Sony. This typography is young and cool. Clearly not the old standards of years past.
Huckabee
Huckabee has the most inexplicable selection of typography and graphics, from the six floating stars to the white stripe seemingly stolen from the Coca-Cola logo. The overall effect is clutter. The main typeface, used to set the candidate's name, is very tightly spaced, or tightly tracked, as typographers like to say. Some letters, like kab, are actually touching each other. Then "Mike" is tucked in between the H and k as if "we almost forgot to tell you his first name." Setting FAITH. FAMILY. FREEDOM. in such a thin weak sans serif feels as if it was added as a committee compromise or an afterthought. The type is too light, too small, and does not have a real voice.
Romney
Uppercase can attract attention and project boldness, which is probably why the Romney campaign set his name in all caps. It works pretty well for 'Romney'. The letters fit comfortably and form a pretty solid unit.
Unfortunately, MITT does not lend itself well to this treatment. The two T's create a big space between them compared with the space between the MI or, to a lesser extent, the IT. The result is an irregular rhythm and feeling of inconsistency. The graphics are puzzling. The eagle logo has the head of the US Postal Service logo and body of the Norwegian flag flowing behind it. Not sure what that means.
Giuliani
Like Clinton, Giuliani has abandoned his last name nearly completely. Rudy is four easy-on-the-eyes letters set in a strong serif with an eye-catching red border. It is set in a strong, bold serif typeface; the serifs themselves are clear and decisive. Using his short four-letter name allows him to set it particularly large. His message is all about Rudy, name recognition. The enlarged R introduces the other letters like a big, protective parent.
McCain
McCain uses type that is a perfect compromise between a sans and a serif, what type geeks call a "flared sans." Not quite sans and not quite serif, sort of in between, moderate, not too far in either direction. The strokes have contrast between the thick and thin, creating the feeling that the ends are going to have cute little serifs, but they just flare out a little, not forming actual serifs but wanting to. The military star centered and shadowed is a not-so-subtle touchhttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif. And McCain just says "President," as if to say he's already been elected. Everything about this logo says you can buy a car from this man. From the perfectly centered star to the perfectly spaced type, the entire design looks like a high-end real estate company. McCain has done something no other candidate has done, he uses all blue, no red - not even a dash. If we were to predict the results based on typography and design, we would pick McCain and Obama.
By Sam Berlow and Cyrus Highsmith
January 27, 2008
[Sam Berlow and Cyrus Highsmith work at The Font Bureau Inc. of Boston. Berlow is general manager; Highsmith is a senior designer.]
© Copyright 2008 Globe Newspaper Company.
link
via
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
