The dialogue between Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson in On the Use of the Camera in Anthropology discusses the use of tripods when filming versus handling the camera and shooting selectively. Mead prefers using tripods, and believes the camera should be used as a telescope, not necessarily as a “camera”. When an artists chooses to shoot one particular moment, another variable is introduced to the work- the artists perspective. When you choose to shoot one thing, you may miss another that is relevant to the subjects behavior. Anything that is considered art, she says, has to have been altered before the project is finished. Your audience then cannot form an analysis of their own, they must take on the one introduced by the artist. The only thing there is to analyze is the filmmaker themselves. Mead prefers to shoot things raw, from one standpoint, for a long period of time and letting her audience determine what the outcome is. She films her subjects long enough to get a sequence of events and believes an artist cannot get a true understanding of what’s going on if they are constantly choosing what and what not to film. She uses an example from her experience in Manus. “ One of the things, Gregory, that we examined in the stills, was the extent of which people, if they leaned against other people, let their mouths fall slack. We got that out of examining lots and lots of stills”.
Bateson, on the other hand, despises the use of tripods. He believes an anthropological film should be a form of art, and shooting from one standpoint is not artistic or creative. He believes tripods hold no relevance because it uses no effort. He needs to feel that there is control over the camera and therefore control over the outcome of the film. Bateson and Mead debate, “Bateson: Of the things that happen, the camera is only going to record 1 percent anyway. Mead: That’s right. Bateson: I want that 1 percent on the whole to tell”. Things the artists finds important should be filmed to show their audience a more detailed view of their subject. Bateson holds more weight with how the film is made then the subject matter being shot.
Both Mead and Bateson hold valued opinions on the use of cameras in anthropology. While Mead believes that man-handled cameras both interfere with the subjects being shot, and taints the final product with the artists bias, Bateson believes it is more important to film more directly with a thesis, and that tripods take away the specific detail artistic films need to have in them.
In the end of the dialogue, they both agree that leaving a camera on a tripod to be left alone for a long period of time is a waste, and unacceptable and meet at one point to agree that weather or not the artist is holding the camera, or that it is supported on a tripod, the artist must be involved, behind the camera or otherwise, throughout the duration of the film.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
After reading some of the opinions Mead was putting out, I agree with almost all of the artist's points. Mead briefly stated in the article that if the camera is shot from one standpoint, the audience can make up their own opinions. I think if the audience is displaying something that is so vague as a tripod just filming an atmosphere, it can make the viewer make their own decisions, but I'm not quite sure if it would have such a strong effect on the viewer compared to the artist moving around, getting different points of view. The photographer wants to give their audience something worthwhile and if they just show one view of an idea, how can one establish such a strong opinion on the art? Mead also made a statement that might contradict the above point. She says that anything that is art has to be altered or changed to be finished. Mead's film of the Balinese trance dance was from one shot, one point of view. She narrated the film but for the most part I did not feel like I was being led into a certain opinion of the Balinese. I do not see what had to be altered or changed in her work for it to be considered art. What is displayed in the film, is art; art because it is creative and natural. I guess she didn't consider her work to be artistic. She was more into the scientific view of culture. Her contradiction makes me think, this is why she changed her mind about the tripod view at the end of the interview.
Mead never intended her work to be art. She stated several times that she wanted to create a non-objective standpoint and allow the viewer to determine what the outcome really was. She left her work unaltered and raw to create a realistic viewpoint of an observer. If she intended her work to be artistic, she would edit it. She believes that if one wants to view another culture, they should see it naturally, not with angles and shots created by the artist. She does believe in having one standpoint, but that is because she is afraid of paying attention to one detail and missing another that is important to a sequence of events.
Also, Mead never changed her opinion of tripods at the end. She and Bateson came to a agreement that the filmmaker must be involved with the production, not just leave a tripod somewhere unattended to.
It's a really tough topic to think about. While Mead is positioning her camera on a tripod for an unlimited amount of time and just letting life unfold, she is deciding where to place the camera, and therefore it makes it, in a way, her point of view. Bateson, by moving his camera, taking different shots, filming different parts of the culture, can have life unfold for his film in the editing room, but he can pick and choose what shots to put when and where, and ultimately what part of the culture to leave out entirely. What if when Meads camera is focused on one event, something entirely different and incredibly exciting is happening somewhere else? She would have missed out on that event, while Bateson could have easily moved his camera to capture the moment.
I think that what this arguement really comes down to what your definition of art is. If you think, like I do, that art is all around you and that the very nature of the world emcompasses art and beauty, then Meads stagnant camera capturing whatever happens to come in front of it is shooting what could be considered an artistic film. But if your definition of art is different, and is something that has to be painted or drawn or, whatever, something not natural, something that does surround you everyday, then perhaps Meads film wouldn't be artistic. The whole thing is based on opinions, and in a situation like that no one can ever really be right. You just have to let it be.
I agree with what the others have ben saying on here so far about camera movement being essential. For a film to even make sense to an audience it needs to be constantly adjusted for changing action and it might take an artist to do that. But even more than an artist it needs someone who actively knows what is going on. Foreign situations being filmed for a far away audience will do no good unless there can be some sort of explanation given. Because of this I think it's really invalid whether moving a camera or not may miss small details, because it's the way those details are put together that really counts. The person filming should be involved to the point that the camera is a participant. An outsiders perspective can't bring any new information or enlighten anyone. To really explore a culture through film the filmmaker must be involved. Because even if certains things are missed, it is more about the truth presented as a whole.
I am at a loss to define resolutley how I feel about this piece. The two view points presented by Mead and Bateson contain many slippery ideas and definitions. Take for instance the words art, artist, science, and perception. All of these words, and the conceptions surrounding them, are very complicated on their own. In relation to anthropological film they take on other levels of meaning as well. I feel like asking a question about anthropological film. Is it popularly considered a science? Or an art form? In some circumstances I think this could be up to a viewers individual perspective. For example, Meads perspective on the relationships between film as art and film as science at the bottom of page 45. She says, "I think the difference between art and science is that each artistic event is unique, whereas in science sooner or later once you get some kind of theory going somebody or other will make the same discovery.". It seems that in Meade's view the scienctific power of a film is defined by its universal representation, or its complete absence of the camera holders own individual view. The idea being to represent an image with as little bias as possible so as to allow the viewer to freely form accurate viewpoints and observations. I feel this is a strong defining point about the difference between art and science. However, what is the line between artist and scienctist? Does there really exist a concrete seperation? Maybe more realistically they are incredibly interdependent, and finding a balance between the human capabilities of empiric, intuitive, and rational thought would provide the most ideal representation in film.
it is hard to decide who i agree with more, both Mead and Bateson make some interesting points, but there are too many grey areas to agree strongely with one side. while i think that it is the job of the photographer to create art, i'm more concerned with what the role of the anthropologist is, is it their job to create art, or to give more of an objective standpoint on different cultures? i think both hands-on cameras and tripods should be used to make sure that you are getting the raw images. you can then focus on the art aspect in the editing going through all the film and deciding what shots to use. why must Mead consider her work art just because she uses film to for research?
Post a Comment