Watching Charlie Rose this evening. He has on Sally Mann. I had not heard of her but from the half hour on Charlie Rose, I was impressed with both her work and herself. What she offered seemed so rich. Perhaps it was simply fresh. . . foreign to me. I know nothing of photographers and photography. I doubt it is purely the novelty. Once again the beauty of Charlie Rose is evident. I have something new to explore in Sally Mann and her work.
The show that night was focused on photography with not only Sally Mann but two others and that focus did make me pause. The last thing I wrote focused on storytelling and the corresponding technology that has effected and changed the craft. As I take in the show I realize that the photograph is responsible for the moment.
Stories, whether read, spoken, or viewed provide a progression, a sequence. This happens, then that, and then somehow this. The beauty and wonder of a story is in that sequence. Photography, however, locks you in the moment. It captures and holds the moment. It might shock or provoke. A photograph frames or is framed. A photograph is focused.
To go back to Sally Mann she said several times in the course of her conversation with Charlie that a photograph has a story. At least that was what I was left with. For her that is success. Perhaps. She also comments how critical it is to capture the right moment. One tenth of second before or after that moment and you missed it. You missed the story.
I am not sure it is the story that is missed. It is the image that changes in that moment, in that tenth of a second. It is what is seen, what is viewed, that is effected. For the viewer, that image makes you want to see more. The image makes you want to know the story behind the image. You ask what is going on in that photograph. The image pulls you in.
I know, who am I to make assertions on something I know nothing about. I began this essay with the premise that I know nothing of photography. Yet it is obvious that a photograph cannot offer a story. How could it. It can only invite one to find a story. It can only pull the viewer's eyes to it. The best photograph will lead one to a story. You will search for meaning in that photograph and that translates to a story. A story provided by either the photographer or imagined by the viewers. Either way, it starts with only the desire or need to see and know more about that photograph. It begins with a response- one sees and one responds. The photograph provokes. The photograph leads one to ask what it is that is being viewed. With a successful photograph a story is what is arrived at.
The most interesting photograph is perhaps the one that leads to incredulity about what is seen. That is the photograph that leads one to ask what is really being viewed. That is the photo that leads one to a story, which then is questioned. The story is not believed, the photograph is not believed, yet the photograph is there before my eyes,
The beauty of photography it seems is again tied to storytelling. That said my original intent was to suggest that it is not story but moment. It freezes time. You see an image of a beach and you can smell the ocean. To witness an image of a battle is to smell gunpowder and sulfur. It is all in the moment and so sensual. It is all senses. You see and you taste and you smell. You can hear the gulls, the cannons. It is not about what happened the moment before, nor about what will happen. It is what is there before you - and your response.
Story or no story, a photograph evokes,
For those who are not familiar with Sally Mann do check out her site - sallymann.com/. And I do encourage you to check out the Charlie Rose segment that inspired the above, Interestingly, the photographer that followed her was Russell James, whose work most have seen. Among other things his credits include Victoria Secrets and his conversation is interesting too.
Friday, August 28, 2015
Sunday, August 2, 2015
The Death of Storytelling. . . or not
This week I attended an event in the WeWorks suite that my office is located in. This is truly one of the perks of working at a WeWorks facility. The number of things going on is pretty amazing. Now I think I am lucky in that we have on my floor one of the larger spaces for such events. Either way it is nice being wined, dined, and sometimes even entertained, even challenged intellectually.
So this week I was introduced to Eventsy, which partnered with another group M.E.T (Media-Entertainment-Technology) to present a panel discussion titled: "The Slow Painful Death of Storytelling".
The general premise was that with the ever changing distribution channels - broadcast television, cable, digital, etc. . . storytelling suffers. Somehow we would lose the ability and focus on storytelling. To explore that theme they brought in a panel of speakers coming from various areas of the media and entertainment sectors.
A few days later I continue to dwell on various thoughts they provoked in the course of their conversations so I thought it appropriate to detail some of them here. Below are some of the thoughts that i keep going back to.
At the core of my thought is the title of the panel. The death of storytelling from where I stand is not happening anytime soon. It might take on new twists and turns, but at the end of the day storytelling is not going anywhere. I am afraid it is practically hardwired into us. It seems to entail parts of our perceptual system. . .what we see and what we hear, And then we try to explain what is happening - what we are seeing, what we are hearing, and why. What materializes is a story that may explain, or amuse or challenge, perhaps all of those, but always it is a story.
With that I just look at the history of storytelling, and technology. With Gutenberg we had the printing press and the Bible. In the 19th century it was the serial and with it Huck Finn, and a Tale of Two Cities. In the early 20th Century there was radio with the War of the Worlds, and silent movies which allowed for the likes of Charlie Chaplin. The timeline can run right up to today, with cable with Tony Soprano and Mr White.
And it could be argued that those technologies lent themselves to those stories. The Bible could not have happened without the printing press. The serials allowed for long large stories to be broken up and digested by a newly literate cultures. Charlie Chaplin though he did do one or two talkies, was a Silent Picture Star.
Lastly, HBO and others really had to introduce their stories on cable. They could not be shown at 10 PM any night on broadcast TV. They had to wait till we had cable. And to really see and feel the story we did need a visual image-which grabbed us through the screen. On the TV we could literally see where the bodies where buried unlike Capote's In Cold Blood. And to understand and feel these characters we needed at least a season.
No the story is alive and well. It has evolved but is still with us. It will digest reality TV and all other absurdities and come back even stronger.
Now at the end of the event the focus moved to funding. Crowdfunding is quite amazing. I have seen numerous musicians take advantage of it. One artists who I follow has offered up jam sessions, living room concerts, and background vocals on his latest album. In the process he is able to spend more time in the studio with a range of musicians, just adding to the quality and duration of the material. In short, for musicians crowd funding is an amazing tool and allows them to truly work with and interact with their audience. Filmmakers I am sure can have a similar relationship with their audience. In both cases I am talking about the "indie-artist", with little or no relation to the studios and record companies.
I will end with one sad note regarding movie financing. Specifically movie futures and a movie futures market. Futures are a type of financial instrument allowing one to invest in various goods and commodities. A famous play in the futures market is the end of the Eddie Murphy Danny Aykroyd film - Trading Places. If you recall they manipulate the price of Concentrate Orange Juice, much to the chagrin of their former masters.
Such markets for the movies would allow traders to bet on the gross receipts that a movie pulls in during its opening. Just as fans are allowed to support their favorite director or production company, with this market, financially driven investors looking for a return on their investment would also have a place to play. At least that was the way it looked, Shortly after getting initial regulatory approval in June of 2010, however, it was killed. The Dodd-Frank banking bill basically prohibited such markets.
Considering all that we have seen evolve otherwise, it is a shame that such markets were not allowed. We might have been forwarned of the success of Mission Impossible this weekend, maybe even made some cash of it.
Once again, a nod to WeWork, Eventsy and the M.E.T. for a fun and provocative evening!
So this week I was introduced to Eventsy, which partnered with another group M.E.T (Media-Entertainment-Technology) to present a panel discussion titled: "The Slow Painful Death of Storytelling".
The general premise was that with the ever changing distribution channels - broadcast television, cable, digital, etc. . . storytelling suffers. Somehow we would lose the ability and focus on storytelling. To explore that theme they brought in a panel of speakers coming from various areas of the media and entertainment sectors.
A few days later I continue to dwell on various thoughts they provoked in the course of their conversations so I thought it appropriate to detail some of them here. Below are some of the thoughts that i keep going back to.
At the core of my thought is the title of the panel. The death of storytelling from where I stand is not happening anytime soon. It might take on new twists and turns, but at the end of the day storytelling is not going anywhere. I am afraid it is practically hardwired into us. It seems to entail parts of our perceptual system. . .what we see and what we hear, And then we try to explain what is happening - what we are seeing, what we are hearing, and why. What materializes is a story that may explain, or amuse or challenge, perhaps all of those, but always it is a story.
With that I just look at the history of storytelling, and technology. With Gutenberg we had the printing press and the Bible. In the 19th century it was the serial and with it Huck Finn, and a Tale of Two Cities. In the early 20th Century there was radio with the War of the Worlds, and silent movies which allowed for the likes of Charlie Chaplin. The timeline can run right up to today, with cable with Tony Soprano and Mr White.
And it could be argued that those technologies lent themselves to those stories. The Bible could not have happened without the printing press. The serials allowed for long large stories to be broken up and digested by a newly literate cultures. Charlie Chaplin though he did do one or two talkies, was a Silent Picture Star.
Lastly, HBO and others really had to introduce their stories on cable. They could not be shown at 10 PM any night on broadcast TV. They had to wait till we had cable. And to really see and feel the story we did need a visual image-which grabbed us through the screen. On the TV we could literally see where the bodies where buried unlike Capote's In Cold Blood. And to understand and feel these characters we needed at least a season.
No the story is alive and well. It has evolved but is still with us. It will digest reality TV and all other absurdities and come back even stronger.
Now at the end of the event the focus moved to funding. Crowdfunding is quite amazing. I have seen numerous musicians take advantage of it. One artists who I follow has offered up jam sessions, living room concerts, and background vocals on his latest album. In the process he is able to spend more time in the studio with a range of musicians, just adding to the quality and duration of the material. In short, for musicians crowd funding is an amazing tool and allows them to truly work with and interact with their audience. Filmmakers I am sure can have a similar relationship with their audience. In both cases I am talking about the "indie-artist", with little or no relation to the studios and record companies.
I will end with one sad note regarding movie financing. Specifically movie futures and a movie futures market. Futures are a type of financial instrument allowing one to invest in various goods and commodities. A famous play in the futures market is the end of the Eddie Murphy Danny Aykroyd film - Trading Places. If you recall they manipulate the price of Concentrate Orange Juice, much to the chagrin of their former masters.
Such markets for the movies would allow traders to bet on the gross receipts that a movie pulls in during its opening. Just as fans are allowed to support their favorite director or production company, with this market, financially driven investors looking for a return on their investment would also have a place to play. At least that was the way it looked, Shortly after getting initial regulatory approval in June of 2010, however, it was killed. The Dodd-Frank banking bill basically prohibited such markets.
Considering all that we have seen evolve otherwise, it is a shame that such markets were not allowed. We might have been forwarned of the success of Mission Impossible this weekend, maybe even made some cash of it.
Once again, a nod to WeWork, Eventsy and the M.E.T. for a fun and provocative evening!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
