This image is from Koyaanisqatsi, a 1982 film directed by Godfrey Reggio with cinematography by Ron Fricke. (The score is by Philip Glass, which was very prominent in the film, but not so much a part of visual rhetoric. Although the music definitely affected the visuals in the original production/context.)
John Berger writes, “[p]hotographs do not translate from appearances. They quote from them” (96). Regarding an image from a film, the photograph is still a quote, but of a specific kind of appearance—an appearance that was already tailored by an artist at least once. A new third party decides exactly which moment of a larger piece of visual rhetoric should be emphasized or paused upon. The scene that this image is taken from begins with an image of a crowd of sunbathers. Then the cameras sweep upward to reveal the nuclear power plant that looms over the beach.
I like this specific image out of this scene because of its composition, which I think can stand alone well. The sunbathers lay at the bottom of the frame, prominent because they are in the foreground, and dressed brightly, but also easy for the eyes to move away from, because they are reclining, seemingly docile. The two figures in the middle of the frame appear as tiny figures without recognizable identities, and also submissive in their crouching positions. The hill that stretches through the mid right quadrant of the frame introduces nature as an entity unto itself (which the beach can’t do because of the people on it, and the sky can’t do because of the wires across it). The nuclear reactor draws a viewer’s attention because of its large size in the frame, and also because it is what turns the standard image of a beach vacation into an image that seems to hold a specific message.
I say that the image seems to hold a specific message, but Berger reminds me that messages through image are ambiguous. I read this image as negative commentary on the scars human technology puts on the world—I read it that way, but I view the image in the context of Koyaanisqatsi, a title that means “life out of balance.” This image could in another context, be presented along with factual information about how little impact a nuclear power plant has on the surrounding environment.
I chose to discuss the image because it complements my question about music’s place in visual rhetoric. Obviously speaking, it doesn’t have one. But in a film like Koyaanisqatsi, or in family slideshows, or other visual rhetoric that has no language but visuals (a half-language, according to Berger) and music (maybe a language?), how much might music act as captions to the images, and can the discussion of such caption be as relevant rhetorically of that as written text captions?
Elizabeth, this is so interesting! I will admit that I've never seen the film. However, what you say reminds me of "A Framed Portrait of a Woodcutter" in which the image Berger takes of Gaston ends up on the mantle. Here, he writes: "There are not trees in it, but the expression of his face is easier to understand if one knows something about the forest." In the context of _Koyaanisqatsi_, viewers "know something about the forest" and thus seem able to discern what Berger refers to as the second of two messages, that "concerning a shock of discontinuity."
ReplyDeleteIt seems also that a devil's advocate could argue that were this image presented as an illustration of "factual information about how little impact a nuclear power plant has on the surrounding environment," it could be considered a tableau, a lie constructed before the camera.
Man alive, I LOVE that film. My students think I'm crazy when I bring it into class but it is a killer visual rhetoric example. A complex argument constructed with only visuals and music. That's beautiful to me, especially the part when we are compared to hot dogs on a factory line.
ReplyDeleteKatie: we have the film if you're interested.
ReplyDeleteAnd knowing you like I do, I'd say you're interested. :)
That offer is extended to all of you, by the bye.
This is an interesting screen shot from the film--the juxtaposition of the "beach scene" with the imposing power plant structures is really fantastic. It really raises some interesting arguments about the relationship between humans, nature and industry--the central argument of the whole film.
ReplyDeleteA couple points I'd like to add:
1) the screen shot you have used is the reverse from the actual scene--it is a modified image, although not to the degree that Stephen talks about in his post. (ie. no giant cats)But still, does this matter?
2)This ties into one of Rory's questions --this image is a still from a film; in its original context, this image was supported by cinematic artifice (Glass' score, how the camera focuses on the sunbathers then zooms out to reveal the power plant, editing (this image is part of a series of images) etc)), how is it possible to analyze images without taking into account these factors? As Rory wonders about Banksey, where does the visual artifact end? How far does the image stretch? I would think we would have to figure this out if we're going to study images, right?
Elizabeth, I have also been thinking about the relationship between music and visuals in making meaning. I posted an Iron Maiden album cover to the blog, so there is clearly some relationship between the music and the imagery, and probably not a totally straightforward one. I'm also taking a class on the impact of hip-hop culture on contemporary art, so I've been thinking a lot about how the whole hip-hop scene (music, style, breakdancing, grafitti, clubs, other contexts) contributes to the meanings of the music. I'm sure I don't have clear answers, but I do know art isn't made in a vaccuum, and that context and intertext contribute to art's meaning.
ReplyDeleteAlong these lines, also have a comment for Josh - is it even possible to figure out where the visual artifact ends? Especially if we think about meaning as made in the viewer, how can we know what connections a viewer will make?
Great conversation, folks!! I want to see the film, too!
Sunny: yeah, maaybe being a bit of a devil's advocate there ;)--but regardless, I think what Rory suggested in his post was really interesting and it made me wonder about the subject of analysis in visual rhetoric. It seems to me that the word "artifact" needs to be thrown out: its emphasis on a discrete product rather than an image as a part of a much larger process of meaning seems to be a bit of a detriment at this point. We've got Finnegan's Production/Reproduction/Circulation model which seems to be a movement in this direction....hmmm...
ReplyDeleteJosh, I too have had some beef with our (rather flippant) use of "artifact." However, then I tried to ask myself what a better unit might be since I agree that images are a larger process of meaning as opposed to a discrete unit. However, this seems like a slippery slope. If we worked to include all the context surrounding these artifacts it would never end. We have to draw the line somewhere in order to have a actual unit to discuss. At some point we have to draw a line, bite the bullet, and start the analysis. Perhaps our beef is not with the term artifact as unit but where we draw the line between discrete unit and context and how much of the latter to include as we analyze. (?)
ReplyDelete