International photographer (Jan-Dec 1934)

Tiveni i' foui T I, INTERNATIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER lpril,1934 SMALL-FILM-IANA THE AMATEUR FILM AS AN ART MEDIUM Part I <jN my last month's article 1 made the statement that the average cine-amateur seldom shows any originality or ingenuity in his pictures. One need only go to amateur club meetings and see some of the pictures made by the members to realize what tremendous room there is for improvement, not only from a technical standpoint, but especially from an artistic. My suggestions in last month's article were chiefly on technical matters in which there is always room for improvement, but there's a good deal more to making a good film than setting up the camera, getting the right focus and exposure, using the right filter, and then pressing the button. Most amateurs understand this mechanical procedure fairly well, but they do not get interesting pictures simply because they are ignorant of the principles of motion picture art, and how to use the medium with which they are working to the greatest advantage. The cine-amateur is not entirely to blame for this ignorance, for the subject of motion picture art is a relatively new one on which there is little material published and for which there are few outstanding examples in modern American films, except in the work of some of the more prominent cinema artists. I do not speak now only of artistic composition and lighting, for no better examples of this can be found than in American pictures; I speak of a purely cinematic art form, which I will briefly outline in this article. That more use is not made of the artistic possibilities of the motion picture in Hollywood productions is not entirely the fault of the people making them, for they are more or less slaves to a public which has not yet learned to understand and appreciate this new art form, and which, therefore, fails to support it. There are many noteworthy examples of really fine pictures which have been box office failures, so one cannot blame the producer for avoiding artistic pictures. That, however, is no reason why the amateur should not make them, for he is working only to please himself and need not worry about box office (though I do believe that artistic pictures can also have box office value — as witness "Farewell to Arms"). It is more or less up to the amateur to develop motion pictures as an art, for the commercial producer is in no position to experiment along these lines. I hesitate to use the word art for fear its formality will frighten the amateur who thinks art is something highbrow, something rather dull, something that requires inborn ability to produce. Perhaps he has not even any intention of producing a work of art, but merely wishes to record what he sees and what is of interest to him in as straight forward a way as possible. Perhaps he is afraid to attempt the new and unusual, and prefers to follow mechanically a series of set rules. That is the wrong attitude to take, for it is responsible for the many dull and mediocre pictures made by amateurs. Most of amateur pictures are mere mechanical reproductions of nature, and hence not art. Art is never a reproduction of nature, but a representation (sometimes quite abstract) of nature in terms of the art medium, be it sculpture, painting, etching, still photography, or motion pictures. A mechanical reproduction is seldom interesting unless the subject reproduced is in itself interesting, as in the By Walter Bluemel case of some newsreels and scientific films, which, of course, make no attempt at anything but an ordinary, unadorned, true-to-nature representation of an event, activity, or process. But how many amateurs are fortunate enough to have subjects of general interest to photograph? And how many amateurs photograph and edit these subjects to the best advantage when they do have them to photograph? I don't think there are many. Some evidently think that pictures of their baby are interesting, but they'd be surprised if they knew how dull they are to someone who has no particular interest in the baby. I do not advise against making a photographic record of the baby, but I do advise against showing the pictures to friends and especially to strangers, unless the picture is photographed in a way which makes it universally interesting. Every pictorial subject which in itself is uninteresting can be made so by interesting and unusual cinematic treatment — by an understanding use of motion picture art. That motion pictures can be (but not often are) art can be proved by comparing their characteristics with those of other arts. The argument against motion pictures as art has always been because of the mechanical factor entering into their production — that motion pictures are merely a mechanical reproduction of nature. Other arts, however, have more or less the same mechanical factor entering into their production. They all require tools, whether it be chisel, brush, pen or modeling tools. Even the hands are nothing more than tools, which, like other tools, can, but not need, be used to produce artistic results. Whether or not they are used to produce artistic results depends entirely upon their manipulation — a brush is used to paint a barn as well as to create a masterpiece. A robot could paint a barn, but it could never create a masterpiece. In other words, the human brain enters into the production of a work of art. It is how the brain, through its sensory aids (eyes, hands, etc.) uses the tools at its disposal in interpreting nature that determines whether the result is or is not art. The motion picture camera, like brush and paint, chisel or pen, in the hands of the creative artist is the tool with which he changes nature into an art form. Rudolph Arnheim, in his book, "FILM" (translated from the German "FILM ALS KUNST"— Film as Art), says: "The film artist chooses a particular scene that he wishes to photograph ; within this scene he can leave out objects, cover them up, make them prominent, without in any way taking liberties with nature. He can increase or decrease the size of details, can make small objects larger than big ones, and vice versa." In other words, how an object is photographed depends entirely on the choice of the film artist. Art is a matter of detail — which details are to be included and which are to be omitted. It is not so much the subject as the treatment that determines whether or not the film is art. It is difficult, especially for the amateur, to find new and unusually interesting subjects, but skillful treatment can make even a trite subject assume new interest. Please mention The International Photographer when corresponding with advertisers.