Wednesday, September 10, 2014
Kino-Eye
I would say the reading this week is much more tame than what we had read previously. That being said, I would not call this completely a docile piece of literature. It first started off saying that the camera is such an amazing piece of tech which can capture the beauty of our world with which our human eyes could not. With the camera, you don't have to worry about time flow or positions since the lens will create your "world" for you. As it goes on though, it portrays they Kino Eye as basically all the best form of media. Theatre was inferior since the only view one could get of it was from where you sat and only there. The camera would allow you to view each point of the show, instantly moving from one to another without having to pause, but a instant transition. I do agree that the camera could portray a story that one could not normally see with just your eyes but this piece just gives the camera too much credit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Just got done with the Kino Eye reading (ramblings). I decided to look online for his movies. I found 'Man With a Camera' and TRIED to watch it. It is pretty much un-watch-able; I think I just made up a new word. His writing seems to me very short-sighted and close-minded. Apparently he believes that he and his crowd are the only ones who can 'see' the world correctly. But then, that's what most Fascist, Marxist, Communist, (et al) seem to believe. Everyone else is either stupid or under the influence of the other side's Kool-Aid.
ReplyDeleteHis movie was simply pieces of film stitched together with no coherent story line. Maybe this is why he and his ilk are prone to bash the collective of past works, because most of them do have a story line or central theme. Most of the old masters work is pleasing to the eye, whereas Mr. Kino Eye's work makes me sleepy, and is obviously devoid of any relevant beauty.
I think most people have in their minds their own idea of art, and what is aeshetically pleasing to them. I see nothing but nihilism, violence, and egoism in the works of this man; at least what of his work I was able to consume before I fell asleep.
I believe he may have been able to make more of an impact had he come with a staff, and not a hammer. I do see the value of his concept of the 'cinematic eye' or as the Russians say, Kino-oki. The mechanical eye does have some advantages over the human eye, such as in, it never blinks. It is also now worldwide, whereas the human eye is in its normal state static, in one place. However, I believe her overlooked the fact that the human eye does things that the cinematic eye cannot, at least not yet. The cinematic eye does not have, for example, peripheral vission.
To summarize, I believe that what I take away from this man's writing is the power of the edit. Plain and simple. Now I have much more respect for the director, who must choose shots that will be useful in his attempt to create his vision. One which will capture the idea which exists only in his own mind. And he must do this by 'directing' others to perform all the tasks involved in filmmaking.