Occupy the Internet
The Arts Room General The persistence of images
THINQon is a platform for a more intelligent web. It aims to replace the ruling paradigm of the web – that of sharing and gathering information – with a sharing and achieving of understanding. Instead of the Q&A model it offers an experience. A platform for discovery of ideas, people, and yourself.     Continue >
The persistence of images
I cooked myself a hamburger today, which though of good quality, the strings of meat which form it were very visible. Whenever I see such strings of meat there are two images which immediately come into consciousness. The first is some German painter's version of the hand machine used to create it. I can't remember the painter or precisely the painting, as it's a vague memory, but the machine is something like this one:
The second, and the much stronger memory, is a beautiful film by Jean Eustach called The Pig (le cochon). Surprisingly this movie does not seem to exist on DVD.
The movie is a 50 minute documentary of a slaughtering of a big pig in a small farmhouse in the French countryside. Starting from the slaughtering to then the use of each and every part of the pig. Nothing goes to waste. They use the blood, the skin, every minuscule part of the pig is used for something. It is quite incredible to watch, and has definitely stayed with me ever since.
What's nice about the movie is that it really shows you the usefulness of the pig, even through the sometimes horrifying images. This is contrary to a film like The blood of beasts (Les sang des bêtes) of Georges Franju which humanizes animals in showing us the awful cruelty of man towards animals. (Also, a must see film). As I mentioned elsewhere, I'm not a vegeterian , but this movie certainly makes you feel bad about the road they took to your plate.

The point of this is to note how certain images never leave us. It is not clear why certain ones remain and certain ones pass quickly. There are of course traumatic images, but mostly certain images simply ingrained themselves on us, which is what images want to do. The history of painting starts with the image of christ ingrained on a towel given to him (The legend of st. Veronica's shroud), and this is what images do to us, sometimes. But why certain ones? Do they have to have shocked us?
Films Discussed
Blood Of The Beasts (Le Sang Des Betes) (1949 France)

Images imprinting themselves upon you: wasn't this the original color of the word fascination? I seem to recall that during the Middle Ages beautiful women were thought to have this power of fascination, their image would enter the admirer's body through his eyes and imprint itself on his soul. I seem to recall this is related to the whole genre of English be- words which describe entering into a certain state: be-witch, be-muse, be-fuddle...it would be interesting to think of the role of sight in effecting the transformation.

I'd say, actually, that many women I know are haunted by their image in the mirror, not because it shocks them exactly but because they feel in some ways subservient to it, they feel its power. Surely this is a power which we've been warned about since antiquity (Narcissus, Medusa, fairy tales) though the place it takes is different.
Virginia, this reminds me of Barthes's distinction between studium and punctum, which corroborates your point about images needing to be shocking to stay with us. But, as useful as the concepts are, the implications of the very word punctum limits it to this very sort of image that 'stabs' you. I agree that there is another genre of powerful/persistent images that act in a different, less direct way - wrapping themselves around you (like Veronica's veil) rather than hitting you head-on.

An example: I've long been fascinated by Caravaggio's Supper at Emmaus in the National Gallery in London. This is very much an image in the first category, with its figures exploding from the picture space.

There was a Caravaggio exhibition at the National Gallery several years ago, and they displayed the painting alongside a later version of the same subject, from the Pinacoteca di Brera (Milan), which Caravaggio painted near the end of his life. The later painting has none of the bravura of the earlier one, but it haunted me as I stood in front of it and has done ever since - arguably, more so than the earlier one. (Apologies for not posting the images, but my computer isn't allowing me to...)

I don't want to do away with Barthes's definition - after all, there is certainly a category of images that communicate information and/or pique our interest but don't necessarily stay with us - but I do think it would be more useful to expand it to include these different ways in which images persist.
Books Discussed
Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography
by Roland Barthes


In response to Misia Stone
your example of Caravaggio is wonderful, I remember this moment in the exhibit exactly: all of a sudden the intense focus, the economical gestures. On the subject of stabbing: is it possible for an image to get under one's skin without, exactly, puncturing (or piquing)? A splinter perhaps?
Join the Community
Full Name:
Your Email:
New Password:
I Am:
By registering at THINQon.com, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
Discussion info
Latest Post: January 15, 2012 at 11:03 PM
Number of posts: 14
Spans 950 days

  
Searching
No results found.