On Aesthetic Distance: A philosophical investigation on Cinematography in the Digital Age

Author _Eugenie Ying Guo Contact_eugenie.guo@gmail.com Essay_ AR2810 Philosophy of the Image and Architecture Tutor_ Patrick Healy, DSD Faculty of Architecture Delft University of Technology

ABSTRACT The making of cinemas is to interpret, recognize and assess the ontological value of cinemas being recording-realistic, and comprehensively to convey the personal wills of creators. Aesthetic distance forms the condition and space to carry out such actions. But when the condition loses its ground, and the deprivation of space occurs, in other words, in the realm of cinema, when audience no more acts as spectator but participatory subjective, we cannot see the primary purpose of cinemas any more.

KEYWORDS: interest relation, aesthetic distance, psychical distance, spatial distance, temporal distance, cinematography, lens, light- rendering/shading, angle of filming, pseudo-(aesthetic) distance, mirror stage theory, imaginary signifier, depth of field, movement, dimension, technology, empathy,

[1]

I.- The aesthetic distance Assume that two men are standing in front of Impressionsoleil levant . One expresses his being pleasant, and claims what he sees is beautiful. The other, on the contrary, doesnt understand the impressionist sunrise and these unwieldy strokes at all, he says this piece of artwork is just specious. Could it be possible that both of these two men are having pure judgments of taste? And what if a third man claims that he cant feel anything? Is there a right or wrong? Since the Hellenistic age, philosophers had already drawn attention upon the interest relations between observers and the literary aesthetic quality. In First Alcibiades, Plato refuted the view of conceiving aesthetic as being practical and useful. The discourse upon utility in aesthetics has never been withdrawn from the discussion table. Kant (1790) in his The Critique of the Power of Judgment conveys his concerns about aesthetic judgment, that it wont be pure if it touches on even a slight sense of utilitarianism, thus become preoccupation and is no longer pure aesthetic judgment. Beauty is a nonperceptional sensation of pleasure or satisfaction (wohlgefallen) and it does not exist in object, neither could it be identified via spectators eyes. Aesthetics is in no way referring to a relationship between object and its spectator, but an act of contemplation based on investigating such a relationship, thus much more reflective and distant. Kant denoted that in the course of aesthetic judgment, man must have no sense of possession, no biased cognition, but an absolute disinterested attitude, which I understand as an emphasis upon the psychical distance between spectator and object. Within a course of judgment, a disinterestedness attitude is very much emphasized, and this also forms an interpretation of distance. Edward Bullough (1912) underlined in his essay Psychical Distance as a Factor in Art and as an Aesthetic Principle, that in a context of Art, as noticed by Aristotle in his Poetics (335 B.C.), a most obvious suggestion of the conception of distance is the actual spatial distance or represented spatial distance within the work. A metaphorical temporal distance, i.e. mostly seen in perspective painting, remoteness from us in point of time, is a factor that considerably weights in our appreciation. Bullough gave an illustration about fog in order to express a general connotation of distance he meant psychical distance: Imagine a fog at sea; for most people it is an experience of acute unpleasantness. Apart from the physical annoyance and remoter forms of discomfort such as delays, it is apt to produce feelings of peculiar anxiety, fears of invisible dangers, strains of watching and listening for distant and unlocalised signals. The listless movements of the ship and her warning calls soon tell upon the nerves of the passengers; and that special, expectant, tacit anxiety and nervousness, always
[2]

associated with this experience, make a fog the dreaded terror of the sea (all the more terrifying because of its very silence and gentleness) for the expert seafarer no less than the ignorant landsman. Despite the experience of practical unpleasantness and danger may be caused, sea fog itself, can certainly be a source of enjoyment. The fog on sea is a fragment in ones real life, it twists with all your cognition, emotion, expectation and practical needs, becoming either a tool or an obstacle. All the reality urges you to detect danger, to anticipate for safety, to dislike the fog that might cause every inconvenience in assisting you to realize your wills. I think the Bullough addressed psychical distance is exactly the deviation between object and spectator (the object and subject in a course of aesthetic judgment) regardless interest relation. You are just too close to the fog, too much related, in another words, there is no way for you to make pure judgment on the fog with an attitude of disinterestedness. The insertion of psychical distance (apparently there is no alteration in spatial distance nor in temporal distance1) alters feelings of mankind while makes the object detach from its interest relation with mankind. In the course of aesthetic appreciation of art, a certain spatial distance enables a release of space and freedom for mans visuality and cognition. Insufficient spatial distance between the objective and the subjective would mislead the subjective to be lost in details thus neglecting the entire image2. In the meantime, the biased angle of cognition can easily result in a distortion and deformation of aesthetics object consequently conveying false image. On the contrary, an excessive spatial distance would probably provide the subjective with completely no image of the objective by virtue of diffusion of light, distribution of mediums in air and other contingent physical conditions. Aesthetic appreciation can also be realized through a temporal distance evoked via the subtle filtration of memory and compensation of imagination (anticipation). When the distance in time has stretched the vertical dimension, the subjective, through recalling and imagination, will be presented with an entire discourse and features of the objective. In the process of re-projecting, the subjective is endowed with total freedom, taking a transcendental position to reproduce and optimize the objective. This simply explains why the things in memory are always better than how they really were. Antiques were never antiques when they were at use. The time lost the temporal distance created, beautifies the primary objective. In aesthetic appreciation of art, an excessive distance would fail the appreciation fundamentally; on the other hand an insufficient distance would probably result in an

I define spatial distance as a distance in regards to physical distance; temporal distance as distance in regards to vertical distance in time. 2 I would give an extravagant example: the Nazca Lines

[3]

overdose in utilitarian motif and thus losing the grounds of aesthetics. The correspondence between a physical distance and a psychical distance ensures universality.

II. The interpretations of aesthetic distance in cinematography: choices of lens, lighting and angles of filming When the Lumire brothers for the first time publicly projected motion pictures onto screen on 28 December 1895, people were drown into the magical world, audiences even ran away from the roaring train coming towards them from the screen. The Dadaist Isidore Isou ever said that film (motion pictures, in modern context) is a constant expression and representation of reality in life. The virtual reality, the verisimilitude of films determined that the film noumenon features a recording character, therefore cinematography and film production is merely a replication process of reality in disordered dimensions. Semantically, cinematography is composed of cinema and photography; technically, it refers to the making of lighting and camera choices when recording photographic images for cinema. The choice of lens affects depth of field and focus, aspect ratio and framing is sometimes subjective, demonstrating the will of cinematographer and film director. The movement of camera carries out the synthesized effect of lighting (with filters) and optical/visual characteristics in scene. The basics and techniques in cinematography were very much founded in early silent film period. Rituals of motion pictures worked in practice while exploring, they set up series of ground rules about optical effect, about type and position of lens, about the printing and editing of films. A cinematographer does everything and nothing. Sometimes he only needs to click the shutter on camera. In cinematography, the use of lens interplays all aesthetic distances (psychical, spatial and temporal). In cinema, the perspective of a scene presented through the normal lens (standard lens) is close to the view from human observer under normal viewing conditions, emphasizing a sense of intimacy and natural. Close-ups rely on the use of prime lens. With a small depth of field, prime lens depict objects in a detailed and ordered manner. A zoom lens is equivalent to the combination of several prime lenses. By altering focal lengths, it is obtainable of various angles of views and range of viewports, therefore generating brand new visual effects. The use of wide-angle lens pushes out the interrelation within entities on one scene, but normally, it reveals the existence of camera causing a trance of audience, thus affecting the coherence of this cinematic artwork. Then the movement created by zoom-lens keeps abreast with the movement of scene (objects) in image space, forming a synchronized rhythm in which the camera dissolves in the synergy of movements.
[4]

On the basis of applying realistic as well as expressionist and ideographic forms to shape image space, light- rendering/shading is also added to compensate (or/and enrich) the physical and psychical environment of image space. As the making of Schindlers List (1993), Steven Spielberg decided to simulate the reality by giving a black and white documentary style of cinematography. Forty percent of the film was shot with handheld cameras, without zoom lenses as the director anticipated. The cinematographer Janusz Kamiski said that he wanted to give a timeless sense to the film, so the audience would not have a sense of when it was made. On the premise of a documentary style, the cinematographic techniques applied the film also referenced to the impressionist way of using light and composition in painting. In a secular context, I believe also the crew of creation believed that, the film shall aim at evoking an empathetic response in the audiences but not absolute aesthetic appreciation. Actually, I wonder if any artist is doing their works out of the pure aesthetic courtesy, I suppose the answer is constantly nil. As the cinematographer said, cinematic spectators are desired to jump over the temporal distance that objectively exists but deliberately made dissolving in the image space supported by vivid natural lighting effect and the naturally fluent movement of lenses. With the help of outdoor on-location shooting in cloudy weather and the use of artificial smoke, Janusz Kamiski addressed the contrast in darkness and brightness, building up a ghastly, depressed and turmoil realistic atmosphere and psychical emotion. The moving cinematographic viewport follows the Jewish refugees being driven, kids being chased and those laborers being forced to strip off, bringing audience into the scene. In general, the angle of filming is in regard to issues of filming elevation, orientation and distance. Each framing is metaphorical and it indicates a certain motivation. The angle of filming is determined by the relation of view point, focal length of lens and the object itself. Intriguing is, the setting of angle of filming provides the creator a subjective space to articulate, whether it has to be symbolic or expressing absurdity. Elevated shooting usually characterizes the subjective as being majestic and weightier than ordinary, implying a kind of heroic charisma (aura), whereas overlook-shooting can easily despise and disgrace the subjective. Cinema as motion pictures features an essence of moving in a universal context. Just because of the feature of this essence, temporal distance has almost become a connate feature existing in the whole course of life. Spectators can make instant judgment, however it has to be differed from simultaneous experience. Undisguised is that in the world of cinematography, it is almost impossible (neither is it meaningful) to artistically re-depict objectives upon aesthetic distance.

[5]

III.- the Lacanian theory in cinematic interpretation and reflection on aesthetic distance

The aesthetic distance in the chain of cinema industry3can be abstracted as both primary and peripheral. And fundamentally, aesthetic distance already exists between these two hierarchies of spectators. In this sense, aesthetic distance is no longer linearly dimensioned but in a multiple way. The spectatorship derives from the primary identification with the camera. The action on the screen as a final cinematic product is in fact viewed by a secondary spectator. It is more a passive and impotent viewer now. The identification with the camera provides the primary spectator an illusion of unmitigated power over the screen images. When it comes to filmic discourse, no limit is assigned to the camera, it simply exposes everything. The camera captures no absence because of its technological nature, it inaugurates a regime of visibility, which enables spectators to completely believe themselves to be all-seeing and thus all-powerful. But in actual fact, this avoidance of being seen from spectator results eventually in the illusory omnipotence of themselves. So, how much of pseudo-(aesthetic) distance do the final film products consumed by ordinary like us contain? On what ground do cinema critics usually stand? If, according to commonly-known rules, cinema critics must not have anything to do with the cinema production process, to what extent could they identify and overcome the false impression brought by the pseudo-(aesthetic) distance? Christian Metz4 , as a psychoanalytic film theorist, pioneered the application of Sigmund Freuds psychoanalytic theory and Jacques Lacans mirror stage theory to the cinema, proposing that the reason film is popular as an art form is on account of its being imperfect reflection of reality and a method to delve into the unconscious dream state. As Metz inducted, film or cinema is a type of imaginary signifier- the psychoanalytic imaginary and the structural linguistic signifier. I understand the imaginary signifier in double meaning cinema is imaginary, virtual technological discourse; the signifier of cinema itself is imaginary. In another words, cinema is the vehicle of expressing imagination while the vehicle itself is imaginary. The imaginary signifier theory coincides with the issue of hierarchical spectator and pseudo-(aesthetic) distance discussed in chapter II. The core of Lacans mirror stage theory is about intuitive (spontaneous, unconscious) self-deception. The mirror stage occurs at infant age (3-18 months), when they misrecognize themselves from looking into the mirror. The infant sees its fragmentary body as a whole (gestalt) and identifies itself with this illusory unity, generating a kind of primary recognition. The infant assumes a mastery over the body which as a matter of

One has to bear in mind that the primary is as the production side of cinema, and periphery as the consumption side of cinema.
4

Christian Metz also applied Ferdinand de Saussure's theories of semiology to film during the 1970s. In Film Language: A Semiotics of Cinema, Metz focuses on narrative structure proposing the "Grand Syntagmatique", a system for categorizing scenes (known as "syntagms") in films. Wikipedia.org

[6]

fact does not exist (because it simply lacks a biological condition), and this self-deception within an imaginary process becomes the ground for the formation of an infants ego. The imago of infant itself appears in the form of another ideal-I, it differs from the Hegels another ego consciousness. Lacans infant and cinematic spectator is analogical in a certain way. The mirrors & ghosts theory5 in cinematography influences the composing of image space in a direct way; it blurs the boundaries of image space presented via film scene and the imaginary and/or virtual space (created by distance) between cinematic spectators and the screen. The lens replicated space meant for imaginary scene; simultaneously the entire image is extending towards the sense of roles and cinematic spectators. The film screen serves as a mirror, through which the spectators can identify themselves as coherent and omnipotent ego. From the representation (vorstellung), being omnipotent ego seems far from enough to indulge (secondary) spectators to become an independent entity. It seems that a spectator can never derive from preoccupation in the process of aesthetic appreciation. However, the imaginary feature of cinema-as being motion picture, already infiltrates the condition that allows a permanent existence of the aesthetic spatial distance, psychical distance and temporal distance. The difference lies in the hierarchies in spectators cinematographers, directors as primary and spectator after-production stage as secondary spectator such as audiences sitting in front of screen. Spatial distance in visions of both hierarchies of spectators has least variables. The framing ratio and image space created is constant and coherent throughout before-after production of cinema. The scene appearing on the effective range of screen an audience sees is the same as a primary spectator sees during making. Psychical and temporal distance is very complex in the minds of primary and secondary spectators since the essence of utility (interest relation) varies fundamentally.

IV.- rethink on cinematography in the age of digital (re)production

Our fine arts were developed, their types and uses were established, in times very different from the present, by men whose power of action upon things was insignificant in comparison with ours. But the amazing growth of our techniques, the adaptability and precision they have attained, the ideas and habits they are creating, make it a certainty that profound changes are impending in the ancient craft of the Beautiful. In all the arts there is a physical component which can no longer be considered or treated as it used to be, which cannot remain unaffected by our modern knowledge and power. For the last twenty years neither matter nor space nor time has been what it was from time immemorial. We must expect great

The evolution of film theories is epitomized as the development from Safe area theory ( montage), Casement theory( general realism) to Mirrors & Ghosts theory.

[7]

innovations to transform the entire technique of the arts, thereby affecting artistic invention itself and perhaps even bringing about an amazing change in our very notion of art.

-Paul Valry, Pices sur LArt, 1931 Le Conquete de lubiquite Having come a long way in the past hundred years, particularly in the last decade, 3D cinema has been re-presented to the public since its disappearance in the 80s. At the present time, many of us have experienced wearing a goggle (not the cheap anaglyph glasses anymore) at theatre while watching a 3D technology based film. I think the whole purpose of a 3D film is to realistically simulate the space and environment that the film is meant to deliver. Screen is still flat, however the sensory effect of the spectator has been altered. Tracing back the primary definition of the art of cinema, it is to understand that cinema, can connately construct aesthetic distance in both temporal and spatial way, and thereupon to create beauty in the sense of pure judgment either from the appreciation on beings from outer space or the empathy towards a bloody fight at Colosseum from Roman age. When audience as spectator is being transformed into participant under the condition of the worshipfully vast use of digital technology, in other words, when the diminishing of spatial distance influences psychical distance, the cognition of subjective upon temporal distance is blurred and thus appears deceptively. Perhaps it is possible to say that the application of digital technology in cinematography blends in all three aesthetic distances, and on this point, I doubt if the audience as the receiver of information can be offered basic conditions to act appreciation. I wonder if cinema critics and judges are able to make neutral commentary out of pure aesthetic judgment without sitting in a gigantic chair at IMAX6 theatre and wearing a pair of 3D goggles. I cannot help drowning into contemplation upon those digital technology supported films destiny if they were only produced out of plainness, what is the aesthetic value again then? In comparison with stationary art of painting and photography, cinema as motion pictures had only grown with one more dimension of movement, as of silent film, the introducing of dimension of sound marked a milestone. Despite some influences brought by the advancing of color technology and optics technology in lens making, the primary structure of the art of cinema had not been challenged for a long time since the entering of sound, until the advent of modern television technology. In the late 1970s, the cinema industry welcomed its contemporary age, a group of creative directors and cinematographers came onto the stage with new visual ideas, more importantly, the technological support was much advanced: cinematographic cameras became handier,

Image Maximum technology.

[8]

sensitive photographic film were invented and peculiar optical lens could also be custommade. The computer technology and digital technology has been thoroughly changing the whole cinema industry, specially the sector of cinematography. There is no talk of a crew of specialists in light setting, in hysterically trying out different angles of filming and the use of lenses all can be done by just one person with one piece of software on one computer. On one hand the traditional cinematography is facing a fierce shuffle, on the other hand, the technology-fever urged a worship of technology-only, which is actually causing cumulative groups aesthetic fatigue in a comprehensive way in my point of view, regardless the cinematographer is a quasi new technology enthusiastist or not. In the post-cinema era, the tremendous development and application of digital imaging technology in stunt making in modern cinemas and the revolutionary switch of cinema producing enables the virtue of being wonders in regards to the art of cinema to be highlightened, transcending the realistic recording feature. We (at least I) used to regard the nature of cinema as a record of spatial image and image space, as a confrontation towards time, this ontology of the cinematographic image and realistic aesthetics theorized by Andr Bazin now tends to decompose. The identification and recognition upon the realistic narrativeness has been transferred onto the appreciation of cinematographic wonders and technology. This is a deconstruction of the existential significance of the art of cinema itself, but also a merging into a wider system of mass media. Bazins cinema aesthetics was built on(to) reality in psychical sense the ultra effect chased by experimenting the depth of field. When the digitalized cinema breaks into our visual sight, the reality encloses doubled layers, it is at this moment a reality set up on the grounds of non-realistic conditions, therefore there requires a stronger (primary) realistic nature. Apparently the new cinematographers are facing supreme challenges. As cinema is no longer a record of objective image but a pure imaginary entity, then, theoreticians in nowadays shall seriously rethink what cinema is and what cinematography has become.

[9]

EPILOGUE. the destiny of art of cinema and cinematography

If we say the conventional cinema producing constraints itself with technological barriers ( including technological difficulties in cinematography), the application of digital image synthesis and image processing technologies ( and so on) have brought the possibility of eventually going beyond mankinds imagination ( which is based on realistic cognition to some extent). Again, cinema is not a recording vehicle anymore, neither is it a simulation of materialistic reality, generating virtualirreality, while the audiences are clearly aware of the digital backgrounds of the reality presented in front of/around them. The intersecting aesthetic distances play an intensively deceptive role in the act of appreciation creating identification difficulties, however one thing is ensured that the convince on cinemas recording reality collapses. And, it seems we have come to the final phase of occurrence, surprisingly, it is to find a retour to create the noumenon of realistic life. Art becomes art because it distinguishes itself from reality. When it coincides with reality, it is reality. When aesthetic distance disappear, when spectator becomes participatory subjective, when virtualirreality blurs the definition of reality, when cult value (Kultwert) and exhibition value (Ausstellungswert) can only be validly reflective via a aesthetic distance I somehow dare to say, we have come to the end of cinemas being art and cinematographys being creator of art.

[10]

BIBLIOGRAPHY Benjamin,W.,(1936), The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction Das Kunstwerk im Zeitalter seiner technischen Reproduzierbarkeit, Andy Blunden (1998), (trans.),originally published in Zeitschrift fr Sozialforschung, Frankfurt, online version available at: http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm Bullough,E,(1912), Psychical Distance as a factor in Art and an Aesthetic Principle, British Journal of Psychology: V5, p87-117, online version available at : http://www.csulb.edu/~jvancamp/361_r9.html Kant,I.,(1790), The Critique of the power of Judgment Kritik der Urteilskraft, Paul Guyer & Eric Mattews (2000), (trans.), Cambridge University, Cambridge Metz, C.,(1986), The Imaginary Signifier: Psychoanalysis and the Cinema, Indiana University Press, Bloomington Metz, C.,(1990), Film Language: A Semiotics of the Cinema, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago McBride, J.,(1997),Steven Spielberg. Faber and Faber, New York,pp. 42933 Pallasmaa,(2007), The Architecture of Image: Existential Space in Cinema, Rakennustieto Publishing, Helsinki Schaefer,D. & Salvato,L.(1984), Masters of Light: Conversations with Contemporary Cinematographers, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles Wenzel,C.H.,(2010), On Wittgensteins Notion of Meaning Blindness:Its Subjective,Objective, and Aethetic Aspect, Philosophical Investigations, 33/3, pp.201-19 Wenzel,C.H.,(2005), Introduction to Kants Aesthetics, Blackwell Publishers

Websites: 1. cinema and the mirror www.filmreference.com 2. American Cinematographer Wide Film Cinematography www.widescreenmuseum.com/widescreen/grandeur-sep1930.htm 3. Wikipedia.org

[11]