Temporality: Essay by Georgs Avetisjans, 2016

University  of  Brighton        

                          Temporality   How  can  we  think  the  difference  between  the  way  in  which  the  still  and  the   moving  image  represent  ideas  about  time?  Does  it  still  make  sense  to   distinguish  between  the  two?                                   Georgs  Avetisjans      

MA  Photography   2016  

Georgs  Avetisjans  (2016),  University  of  Brighton  

 

 

 

 

                               Temporality  

    Photography   and   cinematography   are   technologies   that   seem   to   tell   us   something   important   about   time.   Not   just   simply   representations   of   time,   but   also   various   ways   of   producing  ideas  about  it:  the  folding  of  time,  concepts  of  memory  and  history  that  these   images   represent.   How   do   we,   as   human   beings,   actually   experience   and   understand   this  notion?  What  are  the  similarities  and  what  are  the  differences  between  the  still  and   moving  image?  How  do  other  theorists,  photographers  and  filmmakers  support  the  idea   of   time,   flow   of   time,   memory   and   its   representation   in   these  two   mediums?   This   essay   aims  to  explore  these  questions.  Firstly,  it  looks  at  photography  and  its  relation  to  time.   Secondly,   it   considers   similarities   and   differences   between   the   still   and   moving   image   and  the  way  in  which  they  represent  ideas  about  time.  Thirdly,  it  explores  this  question   from   various   key   theorists,   photographers   and   filmmakers.   And   finally,   this   essay   looks   at   work   what   represents   these   ideas.   To   begin   with,   the   still   image   is   indirectly   connected  to  the  temporal  flow  of  the  moving  image,  in  other  words,  as  Green  (2006)   suggests,  photography  and  film  have  always  been  seen  as  closely  intertwined  and  this   intertwining  has  also  proved  to  be  the  spur  to  differentiate  between  them  (Green,  2006,   5).   The   historical   relationship   of   these   two   media   is   always   concerned   and   we   must   realize   that   things   progressed   very   quickly   after   photography   was   invented   in   1826,   and   cinema   in   1895   (David,   1989,   144).   Rim   (1930)   mentioned   the   day   photography   was  born  humanity  won  a  precious  victory  over  time,  its  most  redoubtable  enemy  (Rim,   1930,  40).     The   nature   of   the   relationship   between   the   still   and   the   moving   image   has   been   described   in   very   different   ways.   In   the   1920s,   which   are   the   high   point   of   the   relations   between   photography   and   cinema,   David   (1989)   has   pointed   out   how   photographic   artists  produce  films  and  vice  versa,  and  how  they  have  common  stakes:  “photography   and   cinema   are   assimilated   on   the   level   of   ambitions,   namely   the   desire   to   make   art   for   the   masses,   which   is   directly   accessible,   and   to   have   an   artform   which   maintains   a   privileged   relationship   to   the   real   (David,   1989,   145).   Whereas,   Newhall   (1937)   represents   the   opposite   idea   in   which   aesthetically,   the   moving   picture   and   the   still   photograph   are   so   independent   that   they   cannot   be   compared.   A   fascinating   and   powerful  ideology  underlies  the  moving  picture;  this  ideology  is  based  on  the  fact  that   the   moving   picture   has   precisely   that   dimension   which   the   still   cannot   have   –   time.   The   moving  picture  creates  its  own  time;  the  still  photograph  stops  time  and  holds  it  for  us   (Newhall,   1937,   105).   Both,   photography   and   cinematography   are   very   important   discoveries  in  our  history  not  only  regarding  of  time,  flow  of  time  or  ability  to  capture   the  flow  of  life,  but  also  because  they  satisfy,  once  and  for  all  and  in  its  very  essence,  our   obsession   with   realism   and   freed   the   plastic   arts   from   their   obsession   with   likeness   (Bazin,  1960,  7).     To   understand   their   relationship,   differentiation   and   their   development   throughout   the   last   century   I   looked   at   various   ideas   from   different   authors.   Besides   André   Bazin,   as   one   of   the   key   writers   about   temporality,   I   will   also   consider   the   work   of   Roland   Barthes   who   introduced   and   expanded   his   approach   from   his   own   experience   into   philosophical  and  ontological  perspective.  Both  of  these  writers  begin  their  analysis  of   the  image  with  a  consideration  of  ideas  about  death.  When  Barthes,  after  his  mother’s   death,  was  searching  for  her  truth,  but  not  only  her  identity,  he  finally  found  the  Winter  

 

2  

Garden   Photograph,   revealed   in   his   book   ‘Camera   Lucida’   (Barthes,   1981,   71).   He   discovered   this   photograph   by   moving   back   through   Time.   The   Greeks   entered   into   Death   backward:   what   they   had   before   them   was   their   past.   In   the   same   way   Barthes   worked   back   through   a   life,   not   his   own,   but   the   life   of   someone   he   loved.   He   started   from   her   latest   image,   taken   the   summer   before   her   death,   he   arrived,   traversing   three-­‐ quarters  of  a  century,  at  the  image  of  a  child  (Barthes,  1981,  71).  In  this  regard  we  have   to   look   even   more   into   the   history   of   mankind   where   Bazin   (1960)   in   his   work   ‘The   Ontology  of  the  Photographic  Image’  suggests  that  the  practice  of  embalming  the  dead   might   turn   out   to   be   a   fundamental   factor   in   their   creation.   The   process   might   reveal   that  at  the  origin  of  painting  and  sculpture  there  lies  a  mummy  complex.  The  religion  of   ancient   Egypt,   aimed   against   death,   saw   survival   as   depending   on   the   continued   existence   of   the   corporeal   body.   Thus,   by   providing   a   defense   against   the   passage   of   time  it  satisfied  a  basic  psychological  need  in  man,  for  death  is  but  the  victory  of  time.   To   preserve,   artificially,   his   bodily   appearance   is   to   snatch   it   from   the   flow   of   time   (Bazin,  1960,  4).     Barthes   (1981)   continues   to   expand   his   view,   which   is   partly   as   a   response   to   idea   of   Bazins’,  that  if  we  look  at  photography  and  its  interaction  with  idea  of  time,  where  the   presence  of  the  thing  (at  certain  past  moment)  is  never  metaphoric  (Barthes,  1981,  78).   By  shifting  this  reality  to  the  past  (“this-­‐has-­‐been”),  the  photograph  suggests  that  it  is   already  dead  (Barthes,  1981,  79).  On  the  other  hand,  Bazin  complements  this  idea  that   no   one   believes   any   longer   in   the   ontological   identity   of   model   and   image,   but   all   are   agreed   that   the   image   helps   us   to   remember   the   subject   and   to   preserve   him   from   a   second   spiritual   death.   Today   the   making   of   images   no   longer   shares   an   anthropocentric,   utilitarian   purpose.   It   is   no   longer   a   question   of   survival   after   death,   but  of  a  larger  concept,  the  creation  of  an  ideal  world  in  the  likeness  of  the  real,  with  its   own  temporal  destiny  (Bazin,  1960,  6).     In  ‘Camera  Lucida’  Barthes  (1981)  provides  a  point  of  departure  in  comparing  the  still   and   moving   image   where   he   establishes   key   attributes   of   the   still   photograph’s   relation   to  time.  Mulvey  (2003)  says  that  most  particularly  what  Barthes  suggests  is  that  as  the   photographic  image  embalms  a  moment  of  time,  it  also  embalms  an  image  of  life  halted,   which   eventually,   with   the   actual   passing   time,   will   become   an   image   of   life   after   death.   Furthermore,   Mulvey   (2003)   reminds   us   that   he   associates   the   photographic   image   with   death   and   denies   that   this   presence   can   appear   in   cinema.   Not   only   does   the   cinema  have  no  punctum,  but  it  both  loses  and  disguises  its  relation  to  the  temporality   characteristic   of   the   still   photograph   because   of   its   movement   (Mulvey,   2003,   135).   Acording  to  Barthes  (1981,  p.  78):     In  the  photograph,  something  has  posed  in  front  of  the  tiny  hole  and  has  remained  there   forever;  but  in  cinema,  something  has  posed  in  front  of  this  same  tiny  hole  where  the   pose   is   swept   away   and   denied   by   the   continuous   series   of   images:   it   is   a   different   phenomenology,  and  therefore  a  different  art  which  begins  here,  though  derived  from   the  first  one.     Meanwhile,   Bellour   (1984)   paraphrases   Barthes’   distinction   between   the   photograph   and  the  cinema:  “on  one  side,  there  is  movement,  the  present,  presence;  on  the  other,   immobility,  the  past,  a  certain  absence.  On  one  side,  the  consent  of  illusion;  on  the  other,   a  quest  for  hallucination.  Here,  a  fleeting  image,  one  that  seizes  us  in  its  flight;  there,  a  

 

3  

completely   still   image   that   cannot   be   fully   grasped.   On   this   side,   time   doubles   life;   on   that,   time   returns   to   us   brushed   by   death”   (Bellour,   1984,   119).   Seizing   on   Barthes’   notion,   Green   (2006)   argues,   that   the   photograph   can   never   testify   to   the   presence   of   the  object  but  only  to  the  fact  of  its  once  having  been  present  (Green,  2006,  11).  Both,   Barthes   (1981)   and   Bazin   (1960)   connect   the   still   image   to   death,   memory   and   melancholia   and   the   moving   image   towards   experience   of   being   present.   Afterwards,   Green   (2006)   reveals   and   talks   about   Christian   Metz’s   (1974)   idea,   fundamentally   greatest   in   terms   of   differentiation,   where   he   advances   the   argument   that   film   overcomes   this   limitation   and   presents   us   with   an   impression   of   reality   which   is   so   much  more  ‘vivid’:  ‘The  movie  spectator  is  absorbed,  not  by  a  “has  been  there”,  but  by  a   sense  of  “there  it  is”  (Green,  2006,  11).     The  findings  from  this  study  make  several  new  contributions  to  the  current  literature.   First,   after   we   looked   at   Barthes’   (1981)   and   Bazins’   (1960)   visions,   I   would   like   to   continue   and   suggest   two   other   authors.   One   previously,   mentioned   by   Green   (2006),   the   French   film   theorist   Christian   Metz   and   the   second,   the   English   film   theorist   and   writer   Peter   Wollen.   Both   are   discussing   and   rethinking   great   ideas   of   relationship   between  still  and  moving  image  with  respect  to  flow  of  time  and  also  the  perception  of   time   in   terms   of   spectatorship.   Metz’s   (1985)   essay   ‘Photography   and   Fetish’,   greatly   supports   Barthes’s   (1981)   introduction   to   this   subject:   “A   film   is   only   a   series   of   photographs.   This   property   is   very   often   exploited   by   the   narrative,   the   initially   indexical  power  of  the  cinema  turning  frequently  into  a  realist  guarantee  for  the  unreal.   Photography,  on  the  other  hand,  remains  closer  to  the  pure  index,  stubbornly  pointing   to   the   print   of   what   was,   but   no   longer   is”   (Metz,   1985,   82-­‐83).   Metz   (1985)   refers   to   Pierce’s   example   of   lighting   in   the   storm   being   the   index   and   confirms   that   film   and   photography   are   close   to   each   other   -­‐   both   are   prints   of   real   objects,   prints   left   on   a   special  surface  by  a  combination  of  light  and  chemical  action  (Metz,  1985,  82).     To   develop   this   idea   and   differentiation   Metz   (1974)   argues   that   in   all   photographs,   we   have  this  same  act  of  cutting  off  a  piece  of  space  and  time,  of  keeping  it  unchanged  while   the  world  around  continues  to  change,  of  making  a  compromise  between  conservation   and  death  (Metz,  1985,  85).  He  already  has  supported  and  established  his  main  idea  in   his  earlier  work  where  the  photograph  can  only  offer  a  trace  of  what  has  been,  whereas   the  film  can  only  be  ‘the  trace  of  a  past  motion’,  nonetheless  ‘the  spectator  always  sees   movement   as   being   present’   (Metz,   1974,   8).   The   latter   is   one   of   his   key   concepts   of   differentiation   between   two   mediums.   On   the   other   hand,   Mulvey   (2003)   pointed   out   another   supportive   thought   from   Metz   similar   to   Barthes   where   he   mentioned   immobility   and   silence   of   the   still   photograph,   with   its   connotation   of   death   where   it   disappears   in   the   moving   image.   To   repeat:   narrative   asserts   its   own   temporality   (Mulvey,  2003,  137).     Singer  (1988)  in  his  analyses  of  Christian  Metz  (1985)  ‘Film,  Photography,  and  Fetish’   dragged   our   attention   to   the   crux   of   these   passages   where   the   photograph   distances   spectators,   whereas   the   cinema   engages   them   in   an   illusion.   The   photograph,   in   this   formulation,   does   not   induce   a   belief-­‐in-­‐presence   of   the   sort   evoked   by   film.   Photography  refuses  to  let  us  “deny  the  signifier”  and  “enter  into  the  picture”  (Singer,   1988,  17).  Whilst  for  Metz  –  as  for  Kracauer  and  Bazin  –  Green  (2006)  adds  that  cinema   is   technologically   and   aesthetically   dependent   upon   photography,   ultimately   it   is   seen   as   ontologically   quite   distinct.   The   differences   between   the   two   mediums   appear   as  

 

4  

stark  and  absolute:  on  the  one  hand  we  have  movement  that  not  only  is  present  but  also   lends  to  the  images  a  ‘presence’  that  is  associated  with  life,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  we   have  a  moment  frozen  in  time  and  an  immobility  that  is  lodged  within  an  ever-­‐receding   past  that  can  only  testify  to  an  absence  that  carries  with  it  the  spectre  of  death  (Green,   2006,  11).     To   support   his   argument   and   understand   more   in   depth,   Metz   (1985)   developed   another   explanation   where   he   draws   the   reader’s   attention   to   the   photograph   being   emerged  and  having  a  third  character  in  common  with  death:  the  snapshot,  like  death,   is   an   instantaneous   abduction   of   the   object   out   of   the   world   into   another   world,   into   another   kind   of   time   –   unlike   cinema   which   replaces   the   object,   after   the   act   of   appropriation,   in   an   unfolding   time   similar   to   that   of   life.   The   photographic   take   is   immediate   and   definitive,   like   death   -­‐   fixed   by   a   glance   in   childhood,   unchanged   and   always   active   later.   Photography   is   a   cut   inside   the   referent:   it   cuts   off   a   piece   of   it,   a   fragment,   a   part   object,   for   a   long   immobile   travel   of   no   return.   Metz   (1985)   also   referred   to   Dubois   (1983),   who   remarked   that   with   each   photograph,   a   tiny   piece   of   time  brutally  and  forever  escapes  its  ordinary  fate,  and  thus  is  protected  against  its  own   loss   (Metz,   1985,   84).   To   support   Metz’s   (1985)   approach   in   this   fundamental   field   it   is   important  to  conclude  his  arguments  with  the  film  and  its  ability  to  call  up  our  belief  for   long   and   complex   dispositions   of   actions   and   characters   (in   narrative   cinema)   or   of   images   and   sounds   (in   experimental   cinema),   to   disseminate   belief;   whereas   photography  is  able  to  fix  it,  to  concentrate  it,  to  spend  it  all  at  the  same  time  on  a  single   object   (Metz,   1985,   88).   In   other   words,   Singer   (1988)   adds,   Metz   (1985)   is   right   in   arguing  that  cinematic  pleasure  draws  on  a  tension  or  interplay  between  “the  force  of   presence”  and  the  actual  absence  of  real  objects  (Singer,  1988,  10).     My   previous   arguments   have   considered   the   central   theme   of   the   essay   question   posed   at  the  beginning  and  now  it  is  more  possible  to  explore  the  key  argument,  proposed  in   the  work  ‘Fire  and  Ice’  by  Wollen  (1984)  where  he  proposes:  “Photographs  appeared  as   devices   for   stopping   time   and   preserving   fragments   of   the   past,   like   flies   in   amber.   Nowhere,  of  course,  is  this  trend  more  evident  than  when  still  photography  is  compared   with   film.”   Taking   the   argument   a   stage   further,   Wollen   (1984)   begins   from   the   main   differentiation   between   both   mediums:   “The   natural,   familiar   metaphor   is   that   photography  is  like  a  point,  film  like  a  line.  Zeno’s  paradox:  the  illusion  of  movement”   (Wollen,  1984,  108).  He  continues  to  extend  and  build  his  exploration  into  the  further   vision:   “The   fact   that   images   may   themselves   appear   as   punctual,   virtually   without   duration,   does   not   mean   that   the   situations   that   they   represent   lack   any   quality   of   duration  or  other  qualities  related  to  time”  (Wollen,  1984,  109).  From  this  argument  it   is   possible   to   confirm   that   the   still   photograph   relates   to   time   in   variety   of   different   ways  by  expressing  different  types  of  narrative  tenses.  Also  it  depends  on  a  viewer  who   observes   the   actual   image,   whereas   the   moving   image   has   fixed   duration   and   aims   to   present  action  as  being  present.     One   of   the   more   significant   findings   to   emerge   from   this   study   is   that   vision   of   Wollens’   (1984)   that   appeared   while   he   was   thinking   about   photography   and   film,   prior   to   writing  his  essay,  where  he  began  to  play  with  the  idea  that  film  is  like  fire,  photography   is   like   ice.   Film   is   all   light   and   shadow,   incessant   motion,   transience,   flickered.   Photography   is   motionless   and   frozen   and   it   has   the   cryogenic   power   to   preserve   objects  through  time  without  decay  (Wollen,  1984,  110).  

 

5  

  In   his   personal   perception   and   understanding   of   visual   languages   and   temporality,   Wollen   (1984)   shares   his   own   fascination   with   pictorial   narrative   and   reveals   that   is   not  a  recalcitrant  fascination,  like  that  of  Barthes.  Unlike  him,  he  is  not  always  longing   for  a  way  of  bringing  the  flow  to  a  stop.  It  is  more  a  fascination  with  the  way  in  which   the  spectator  is  thrown  in  and  out  of  the  narrative,  fixed  and  unfixed.  Traditionally,  this   is   explained   in   terms   of   identification,   distanciation,   and   other   dramatic   devices.   Perhaps   it   is   also   connected   with   aspect,   a   dimension   of   the   semantics   of   time   common   to  both  the  still  and  the  moving  picture  and  used  in  both  to  place  the  spectator  within  or   without  a  narrative  (Wollen,  1984,  113).  According  to  Wollen  (1984,  p.  108):     The   moment   captured   in   the   image   is   of   near-­‐zero   duration   and   located   in   an   ever-­‐ receding   ‘then’.   At   the   same   time,   the   spectator’s   ‘now’,   the   moment   of   looking   at   the   image,   has   no   fixed   duration.   It   can   be   extended   as   long   as   fascination   lasts   and   endlessly  reiterated  as  long  as  curiosity  returns.  This  contrasts  sharply  with  film,  where   the   sequence   of   images   is   presented   to   the   spectator   with   a   predetermined   duration   and,  in  general,  is  only  available  at  a  fixed  programme  time.     The  current  findings  add  substantially  to  our  understanding  of  still  and  moving  image   and   their   relationship   and   differences   to   time,   but   I   do   want   to   add   one   and   last   suggestion   from   Wollen   (1984),   before   I   continue   to   look   at   one   of   the   most   inspirational   German   film   directors   –   Wim   Wenders   and   his   portrayal   of   the   flow   of   life   and   time   itself.   Wollen   (1984)   emphasized   that   the   relationship   of   photography   to   time   is   more   complex   than   is   usually   allowed.   Especially,   it   is   impossible   to   extract   our   concept  of  time  completely  from  the  grasp  of  narrative.  This  is  all  the  more  true  when   we   discuss   photography   as   a   form   of   art   rather   than   as   a   scientific   or   instructional   instrument  (Wollen,  1984,  109).     In   this   essay   I   have   discussed   contributions   to   existing   knowledge   of   previously   presented   theorists   and   researchers   and   further   I   would   like   to   focus   on   filmmaker   and   photographer   Wim   Wenders   ideas.   Thanks   to   his   films,   photographs   and   especially   thoughts   from   an   interview   at   the   Kunstforeningen   Gammel   Strand   (2014)   that   made   me   interested   in   the   question   of   this   essay   and   drove   my   attention   towards   the   exploration   of   time,   flow   and   even   the   importance   of   sequencing   movie   frames   into   the   chronological  order,  and  most  importantly  –  the  notion  of  valuing  the  flow  of  time.  I  also   enjoyed   Wenders’   way   of   looking   at   the   seriousness   of   time   in   photography   and   its   relation  to  it  in  comparison  to  cinematic  image.       Before  I  begin  my  discussion  of  one  of  his  narrative  films,  I  propose  to  present  his  ideas   first,   in   terms   of   his   own   perception   of   the   earlier   discussed   themes.   First   of   all,   he   always  thinks  of  each  photograph  as  sort  of  a  time  capsule  that  is  traveling  in  time  and   does  not  stay  there.  In  a  video  interview  with  Wagner  (2014)  he  reveals  one  of  the  most   important   key   concepts:   “Picture   that   was   taken   ten   years   ago   and   when   I   look   at   it   ten   years   later   it   also   tells   me   about   ten   years   that   happened   since”   (Wenders,   2014,   26:18   min.).   Here   we   are   reminded   of   Metz   (1985)   argument   earlier,   where   he   explained   about   photography’s   immediate   and   definitive   shape:   “unchanged   and   always   active   later”  (Metz,  1985,  84).  Next,  Wenders  (2014)  develops  his  statement:  ”Photographs  are   very   complex.   Their   relation   to   time   is   complex,   their   relation   to   mortality   and   changes   are   complex   and   their   relation   to   the   eye   that   saw   them   is   extremely   complex.   They  

 

6  

invite   you   to   see   more   than   any   film   could   ever   show”   (Wenders,   2014,   26:18   min.).   Similarly,   as   Wollen   (1984)   implies,   photography’s   relationship   to   time   is   a   far   more   complex  affair  than  is  often  granted  (Green,  2006,  13).     Wenders   (2014)   shared   knowledge   that   photographs   seem   to   be   frozen   in   time,   but   they   have   incredible   relation   to   their   own   past   and   their   future.   They   tell   you   about   time   although   they   are   just   the   slices   of   time.   (Wenders,   2014,   25:35   min.)   In   the   beginning  of  his  career  he  started  as  a  painter  and  later  he  initially  regarded  film  and   photography  as  a  simple  way  of  recording  surroundings  and  the  camera  as  an  extension   of   his   painting   tools.   What   he   discovered,   however,   was   that   the   camera   could   depict   something   that   paintings   could   not   -­‐   time.   In   the   interview   he   talks   about   films   and   explains  that  every  shot  and  every  frame  is  like  a  painting  or  a  brick  in  the  building  that   on   the   end   you   had   something   that   was   sort   of   architecture   in   time   (Wenders,   2014,   10:34  min.).     David   (1989)   suggests   that   Wenders   makes   very   photographic   cinema.   Even   when   he   has  a  scenario,  he  greatly  favours  the  accidental,  that  which  is  likely  to  happen  in  front   of   the   camera,   and   he   has   a   very   contemplative   relationship.   He   expects   things   to   happen  a  bit  like  a  photographer  who  waits  to  trap  a  privileged  moment  (David,  1989,   145).  For  example,  in  a  video  interview  at  the  Museum  of  Modern  Art  (2015)  Wenders   (2015)   revealed   photographer   Walker   Evans   as   an   inspiration   for   his   first   film   in   America.  Called  “Alice  in  the  Cities”  (1974)  and  shot  by  Robby  Müller  as  a  1st  part  from   the  road  movie  trilogy  what  included  “The  Wrong  Move”  (1975)  and  “Kings  of  the  Road”   (1976).  Later  he  mentioned  that  his  inspiration  wasn’t  any  other  black  and  white  films,   but   strictly   photography.   Framing   wise   and   also   aesthetically   (Wenders,   2015,   04:14   min.).  To  continue  to  support  David  idea  in  terms  of  accidental  in  the  movies  same  like   in  photography,  Wenders  (1971)  himself  supported  some  of  his  ideas  in  his  essay  that   right   at   the   beginning   he   thought   making   films   meant   setting   the   camera   up   somewhere,   pointing   it   at   some   object,   and   then   just   letting   it   run   (Wenders,   1971,   88).   Even   nowadays   Wenders   (2014)   complements   his   argument:   “I   very   much   like   the   documentary  approach  to  filmmaking  that  something,  that  you  put  up  the  camera  and   you   started,   and   whatever   happens   on   the   front   of   it,   happens   once   and   it   is   almost   miraculous   that   you   can   catch   it   and   that   you   can   view   it   again:   the   dog   crosses   the   street,  the  clouds  that  move,  and  it  is  unique  event,  sort  of  in  the  strange  way,  almost   holy,  that  you  can  do  that  and  you  shouldn’t  interfere  with  it.  For  years  I  didn’t  know   how   to   say   ‘cut’,   because   I   felt   it   is   not   allowed   to   cut   flow   of   time”   (Wenders,   2014,   15:00  min.).  Looking  back,  Wenders  (1984)  explores  different  possibilities  and  visions   in   the   interview   with   Katherine   Dieckmann   for   the   “Film   Quarterly”   (1984-­‐1985)   and   points  out  that  he  had  always  thought  that  films  have  been  invented  in  the  first  place  to   witness  the  twentieth  century.  He  has  always  been  very  attracted  to  documentaries,  but   has   always   thought   that   feature   films   are   in   a   way   the   true   documents   of   our   time.   Especially   when   they’re   outrageous   fantasies,   like,   let’s   say,   Hitchcock’s   (1958)   Vertigo.   If  somebody  500  years  from  now  happened  to  find  Vertigo,  they’d  have  a  pretty  clear   notion  of  what  America  looked  like  in  1958.  This  is  a  very  important  component  of  film-­‐ making:  even  if  a  film  is  sheer  fantasy  –  film  is  unique  because  no  other  form  can  do  that   –  it’s  also  a  document  of  the  time  it  was  made  (Wenders,  1984-­‐85,  6).      

 

7  

Another  argument  to  emphasize  is  his  importance  for  films  to  be  sequential.  Anything   that  disturbs  or  breaks  up  these  sequences  annoys  him.  Films  have  got  to  respect  theses   sequences  of  action.  The  continuity  of  movement  and  action  must  be  true,  there  must   not  be  any  jolt  in  the  time  being  portrayed.  He  argues:  ”you  see  a  lot  of  cuts,  especially   in  TV  films,  where  they  cut  back  and  forth  and  you  can  just  tell  from  his  face  that  time   has  elapsed,  time  that  you  haven’t  been  shown.”  Wenders  disappointingly   continue  to   develop   his   argument:   “I   hate   that,   and   it   makes   me   angry   whenever   I   see   it   happening.   It   should   keep   faith   with   the   passage   of   time.   Films   are   congruent   time   -­‐   sequences,   not   congruent   ideas”   (Wenders,   1971,   89-­‐90).   Even   nowadays   he   still   likes   to   shoot   in   chronological   order   although   sometimes   it   is   not   possible:   “I   still   like   as   much   as   possible  to  do  it,  because  it  respects  time,  as  something  needs  to  be  respected.  I  think  it   is  disrespectful  to  cut  too  fast  or  cut  too  often,  because  it  is  violating  time”  (Wenders,   2014,  16:56  min.).     This   overview   has   explained   the   central   importance   of   Wenders   idea   of   time   being   sequential   in   his   films,   complexity   of   photography’s   relation   to   time   -­‐   how   photography   responds  to  our  memory  and  how  it  tells  about  the  time  period  what  happened  since.   Similarly   as   Wollen   (1984)   had   explained   earlier   that   the   moment   captured   in   the   image   is   of   near-­‐zero   duration   and   located   in   an   ever-­‐receding   ‘then’.   At   the   same   time,   the  spectator’s  ‘now’,  the  moment  of  looking  at  the  image,  has  no  fixed  duration.  It  can   be   extended   as   long   as   fascination   lasts   and   endlessly   reiterated   as   long   as   curiosity   returns  (Wollen,  1984,  108).     Henceforth,  I  propose  to  begin  the  discussion  of  one  of  his  films.  In  this  regard,  I  suggest   to   look   at   his   very   first   full-­‐length   feature   film   “Summer   in   the   City”   (1970)   made   together  with  Robby  Müller.  The  movie  was  produced  as  his  graduation  project  at  the   Academy   of   Film   and   Television   in   Munich.   According   to   Wenders   (1992),   the   title   of   the  film  relates  to  the  song  from  the  band  The  Lovin'  Spoonful,  which  was  also  included   in   the   film   (Wenders,   1992,   123).   Further,   Wenders   explains   about   the   movie:   ”It’s   shot   in  16  mm  black  and  white  in  six  days.  It  had  a  screenplay,  more  or  less,  so  that  when  we   see  the  film  now  we  are  pretty  sure  what  parts  of  it  we  were  responsible  for,  mostly  the   framing   and   the   dialogue,   and   what   was   left   to   chance.   The   way   the   film   turned   out,   there’s  something  almost  private  about  it,  the  people  who  appeared  in  it  were  friends,  it   was  all  shot  straight  off,  we  only  went  for  a  second  take  when  something  went  totally   wrong  (Wenders,  1971,  88).     Consequently,  the  storyline  is  the  journey  of  protagonist  Hans  Zischler  (starring)  after   he   is   released   from   prison.   For   a   viewer   there   is   an   intimate   emotional   experience.   It   creates  the  feeling  of  the  flow  of  life  and  a  sense  of  sequential  chronology.  Somehow,  the   film  has  its  own  quality  where  the  time  flows  on  its  own  pace  with  very  few  dialogues   and  erases  the  boundaries  between  photography  and  cinematography.  This  work  uses   photography  qualities,  mostly  static  exposures.  It  includes  actual  linear  time  (present)   and  allows  viewers  to  experience  his  (Hans)  ‘past’  time  through  his  memory.  It  excludes   still   images   as   memory   and   rather   uses   the   exposure   of   stories   through   various   dialogues   with   friends   and   acquaintances   and   thus   explores   his   character.   It   seems   also   that   the   film   is   directed   towards   the   genre   of   road   movie   and   shows   his   signature   of   further   feature   films   (Summer   in   the   City,   1970.   [Film]   Directed   by   Wim   Wenders.   Germany:  Atlas  Film).    

 

8  

The   story   itself   from   Hans   recent   past   develops   very   slowly   at   ease   and   forces   spectators   to   use   their   own   imagination,   as   they   would   when   reading   the   book.   The   movie   focuses   on   the   present   tense   and   makes   us   live   through   his   journey   as   he   is   searching,   remembering   and   wandering   throughout   West   Germany.   Apart   from   that,   I   sensed   another   connotation   closely   related   to   passage   of   time   and   its   influence   to   his   own  memory  while  he  was  absent  from  the  real  world.  For  example,  in  Germany  it  kept   changing  whilst  his  closed  environment  in  prison  remained  the  same.  In  such  a  way  he   had  to  force  himself  to  absorb  information  in  a  short  time  (Exposure  2)  (see  figure  1  for   the  different  exposures).  Despite  the  fact  that  things  changed  he  was  still  longing  of  his   own   past   and   absorbed   in   memories.   It   appeared   in   the   scenario   where   he   is   going   together  with  his  friend  to  see  the  movie  “Alphaville”  by  Jean-­‐Luc  Godard  (1965)  (see   figure  1,  exposure  3).  Hans  asked  him  before  the  cinema  that  he  would  like  to  see  an  old   black  and  white  film  and  that  he  does  not  want  to  see  a  new  film  now  (Summer  in  the   City,   1970,   00:17:32).   His   statement   greatly   revealed   the   passage   of   time   what   he   missed  and  his  unwillingness  to  accept  that.     In   figure   1,   exposure   4   there   is   another   dialogue   as   a   representation   of   present   tense   “there  it  is”  and  the  past  tense  of  his  memory  “that  has  been”  where  Hans  engaged  with   the  taxi  driver  shortly  after  he  got  into  the  car:  “I’ll  give  you  20  Marks  if  you  drive  me   around…”   Then   he   continued   in   his   third   voice   addressed   to   viewer:   ”I   asked   him   if   this   is   not   the   spot   where   the   Auguster   Cinema   once   stood.”   Driver   answered:   “they   just   recently  made  a  supermarket  out  of  it.  Even  the  Crystal  and  the  Film  Burg  have  closed   down.  The  Film  Burg  is  now  a  flea  market.”  The  dialogue  represented  an  actual  time  in   story,   programme   time   as   a   slice   in   viewer’s   time   and   time   elapsed   in   life   of   Hans.   Whereas,  figure  1,  exposure  5  and  6  are  visualizations  of  the  flow  of  time  what  Wenders   with   Müller   uses   very   often   throughout   the   entire   movie   by   using   static   exposures   as   photographs  and  letting  time  to  flow  in  front  of  the  camera.  Later,  figure  1,  exposure  7   remotely  represents  his  absence  from  the  real  world  and  time  passage  from  “then”  to   “now”  where  he  tells,  while  he  is  looking  at  vinyl  plates:  “I  wouldn’t  know  any  of  these   new  records.”  Further,  he  also  started  a  long  monologue  about  places  in  Germany  that   have  disappeared  (see  figure  1,  exposure  8).  Movie  aims  to  reveal  this  accidental  flow  of   life,   photographic   qualities,   memory,   longing   and   focuses   to   underline   the   presence   itself  throughout  entire  work  (see  figure  1,  exposure  9  –  14)  In  other  words,  Metz  has   demonstrated   to   me   that   in   the   cinema   the   impression   of   reality   is   also   the   reality   of   impression,  the  real  presence  of  motion  (Metz,  1974,  9).     Figure 1 - exposures for Summer in the City (1970,  01:54  min.)

Exposure  1  (00:00:06)  /  Exposure  2  (00:14:44)  

 

   

 

9  

Exposure  3  (00:17:45)  /  Exposure  4  (00:20:55)  

Exposure  5  (00:29:18)  /  Exposure  6  (00:29:59)  

Exposure  7  (00:36:04)  /  Exposure  8  (00:40:19)  

   

 

   

 

   

 

   

 

Exposure  9  (01:48:02)  /  Exposure  10  (01:48:24)  

 

10  

This  essay  has  explained  the  central  importance  of  temporality  in  the  still  and  moving   image  and  their  relation  to  time  and  memory.  To  conclude  this  assignment  and   summarize  all  the  answers  to  the  essay  question  I  connected  some  of  the  key  ideas   further.  For  example,  photographer  Gregory  Crewdson  (2006)  in  interview  with   Holtzman  (2006)  simply  explains:  “I  have  many  friends  who  are  film  directors,  and  I   think  differently  than  they  do.  They  really  think  in  terms  of  plot  and  story  and  linear   time,  and  montage  and  sound.  And  I  don’t  think  that  way.  I  just  think  in  terms  of  single   images”  (Crewdson,  2006,  171).  This  argument  led  me  to  understand  the  most  obvious   difference  between  the  way  in  which  the  still  and  the  moving  image  represent  ideas   about  time.  Photography  appears  to  be  like  flies  in  amber:  embalmed  forever  or  like  a   point,  punctual,  death  or  ice,  whereas  film  is  like  a  line,  linear,  present  or  fire.  In  other   words,  film  is  all  light  and  shadow:  incessant  motion,  transience,  flickered.  Whereas,   photography  is  motionless  and  frozen,  it  has  the  cryogenic  power  to  preserve  objects   through  time  without  decay.  The  movie  spectator  is  always  absorbed,  not  by  a  “has   been  there”,  but  by  a  sense  of  “there  it  is”.  Photography  snatches  the  piece  from  the  flow   of  life  and  has  its  own  duration  later,  depending  from  the  viewer,  whereas  cinema   records  the  flow  and  has  its  own  fixed  duration  later  in  another  time  and  space  or,  as   Wollen  marked,  duration  at  the  fixed  programme  time.       To   sum   up   previously   discussed   arguments,   I   came   to   the   conclusion   that   authors,   mostly,   supported   each   other   ideas.   Wenders   thoughts   were   similar   to   Wollens   and   Barthes   that   photographs   seem   to   be   frozen   in   time,   like   ice   or   death.   At   the   same   time,   he   confirmed   Metz   proposal   that   photography   is   unchanged   and   always   active   later   with   example   where   Wenders   explained   picture   being   taken   ten   years   ago   tells   about   ten  years  that  happened  since.  Also  Wollen  supported  this  idea  that  image  is  near  ‘zero’   duration  and  always  located  in  an  ever-­‐receding  ‘then’  where  the  spectator’s  ‘now’,  the   moment   of   looking   at   the   image,   has   no   fixed   duration.   He   confirmed   that   it   could   be   extended   as   long   as   fascination   lasts.   Finally,   Metz   and   Wollen   haven’t   discussed   importance  of  films  being  sequential  or  accidental  although  Wenders  underlined  those   as  very  important  aspects  and  confirmed  that  films  are  congruent  time  sequences,  not   congruent   ideas.   Each   accident   in   flow   of   time   is   unique   event,   almost   holy   and   we   shouldn’t  interfere  with  it.  He  felt  it  is  not  allowed  to  cut  flow  of  time  or  cut  too  fast  or   cut  too  often,  because  it  is  violating  time.     References    

Louisiana  Channel,  Louisiana  Museum  of  Modern  Art  (2014)  Wim  Wenders:  Painter,  Filmmaker,  Photographer.   [Online],  Available:  https://vimeo.com/111736148  [accessed  15th  October  2015].     Museum  of  Modern  Art  (2015)  Wim  Wenders:  Interview  with  MoMA  Film.  [Online],  Available:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6F5mhFyemg  [accessed  31st  December  2015].   Kolditz,  Stefan  (1992)  Summer  in  the  City.  In:  Wender,  W.  Frieda  Grafe  et  al  (123).  Munich/Vienna:  Hanser.     Oksiloff,  Assenka  (1996)  Eden  is  Burning:  Wim  Wenders’s  Techniques  of  Synaesthesia.  The  German  Quarterly,  69  (1):   32  –  47.     Dieckmann,  Katherine  &  Wenders,  Wim  (1984-­‐1985)  Wim  Wenders:  An  Interview.  Film  Quarterly,  38  (2):  2  –  7.     Katz,  Marc  (1998)  Wim  Wenders  on  the  Verbal  and  Visual.  Pacific  Coast  Philology  33  (2):  109  –  111.     Barthes,  Roland  (1981)  Camera  Lucida:  Reflections  on  Photography.  New  York:  Hill  and  Wang.     Barthes,  Roland  (1977)  Image-­‐Music-­‐Text.  London:  Fontana  Press.  

 

11  

Green,  David  &  Lowry,  Joanna  (2006)  Stillness  and  Time:  Photography  and  Moving  Image.  Brighton:  Photoworks  /   Photoforum.   Green,  David  (2006)  Marking  Time:  Photography,  Film  and  Temporalities  of  the  Image.  In:  Green,  D.  &  Lowry,  J.  (ed.)   Stillness  and  Time:  Photography  and  Moving  Image  (4-­‐16).  Brighton:  Photoworks  /  Photoforum.     Campany,  David  (2007)  The  Cinematic:  Documents  of  Contemporary  Art.  London:  MIT/  Whitechapel.     Rim,  Carlo  (1930)  On  the  Snapshot.  In:  Campany,  D.  (ed.)  The  Cinematic:  Documents  of  Contemporary  Art  (40-­‐42).   London:  MIT/  Whitechapel.     Gaensheimer,  Susanne  (1999)  Moments  in  Time.  In:  Campany,  D.  (ed.)  The  Cinematic:  Documents  of  Contemporary  Art   (68-­‐79).  London:  MIT/  Whitechapel.     Pasolini,  Pier  Paolo  (1967)  Observations  on  the  Long  Take.  In:  Campany,  D.  (ed.)  The  Cinematic:  Documents  of   Contemporary  Art  (84-­‐87).  London:  MIT/  Whitechapel.     Wenders,  Wim  (1971)  Time  Sequences,  Continuity  of  Movement.  In:  Campany,  D.  (ed.)  The  Cinematic:  Documents  of   Contemporary  Art  (88-­‐90).  London:  MIT/  Whitechapel.     Newhall,  Beaumont  (1937)  Moving  Pictures.  In:  Campany,  D.  (ed.)  The  Cinematic:  Documents  of  Contemporary  Art   (104-­‐105).  London:  MIT/  Whitechapel.     Wollen,  Peter  (1984)  Fire  and  Ice.  In:  Campany,  D.  (ed.)  The  Cinematic:  Documents  of  Contemporary  Art  (108-­‐113).   London:  MIT/  Whitechapel.     Mulvey,  Laura  (2003)  Stillness  in  the  Moving  Image:  Ways  of  Visualizing  Time  and  Its  Passing.  In:  Campany,  D.  (ed.)   The  Cinematic:  Documents  of  Contemporary  Art  (134-­‐139).  London:  MIT/  Whitechapel.     Catherine,  David  (1989)  Photography  and  Cinema.  In:  Campany,  D.  (ed.)  The  Cinematic:  Documents  of  Contemporary   Art  (144-­‐152).  London:  MIT/  Whitechapel.     Crewdson,  Gregory  (2006)  Interview  with  Anna  Holtzman.  In:  Campany,  D.  (ed.)  The  Cinematic:  Documents  of   Contemporary  Art  (168-­‐171).  London:  MIT/  Whitechapel.     Campany,  David  (2003)  Safety  in  Numbness:  Some  Remarks  on  Problems  of  ‘Late  Photography’.  In:  Campany,  D.  (ed.)   The  Cinematic:  Documents  of  Contemporary  Art  (185-­‐194).  London:  MIT/  Whitechapel.     Akerman,  Chantal  (2004)  In  Her  Own  Time:  Interview  with  Miriam  Rosen.  In:  Campany,  D.  (ed.)  The  Cinematic:   Documents  of  Contemporary  Art  (195-­‐197).  London:  MIT/  Whitechapel.     Metz,  Christian  (1974)  Film  Language:  A  Semiotics  of  the  Cinema.  Oxford:  Oxford  University  Press     Metz,  Christian  (1977)  The  Imaginary  Signifier:  Psychoanalysis  and  the  Cinema.  Bloomington:  Indiana  University   Press     Metz,  Christian  (1985)  Photography  and  Fetish.  October,  34  (Autumn):  81  –  90.     Singer,  Ben  (1988)  Film,  Photography,  and  Fetish:  The  Analyses  of  Christian  Metz.  Cinema  Journal,  27  (4):  4  –  22.     Bazin,  André  (1960)  The  Ontology  of  the  Photographic  Image.  Film  Quarterly,  13  (4):  4  –  9.     Jay,  Martin  (2014)  Photography  and  the  Event.  In:  Shevechenko,  O.  (ed.)  Double  Exposure:  Memory  &  Photography   (91-­‐111).  New  York:  Transaction  Publishers.     De  Duve,  Thierry  (1978)  Time  Exposure  and  Snapshot:  The  Photograph  as  Paradox.  October,  5  (Summer):  113  –  125.     Bellour,  Raymond  (1984)  The  Pensive  Spectator.  In:  Wide  Angle.  9  (1):  119-­‐123.     Dubois,  Philippe  (1983)  L’acte  photographique.  Paris  and  Brussels:  Nathan  and  Labor.     Summer  in  the  City,  1970.  [Film]  Directed  by  Wim  Wenders.  Germany:  Atlas  Film  

 

12