We could start by noting that The True Meaning... is a film of "social representation" in that it gives tangible representation to aspects of the world we already inhabit and share. Such films make the stuff of social reality visible and audible in distinctive ways according to the acts of selection and arrangement carried out by the filmmaker. They also contain truths, if we decide they do. The viewer assesses the claims and assertions, perspectives and arguments in relation to the world we know and decide or believability.
Shelby Lee Adams choses to depict the mountian people of Eastern Kentucky in very deliberate ways. It seems that his mission is to show the beauty of this particular group of people that he feels are generally misunderstood. He seems to have a genuine connection and love for these people and it shows in his narration of his time spent with them and gained understanding of their culture in their terms. I think that when people react to his work as a mocking depiction, it reflects upon their own assumptions about the stereotypes of these people. However, Adams refuses to back away from the discomfort of sterotypes in order to depict these people in a, seemingly at least, truthful light.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most interesting parts in the film for me was when the sister of the young girl in the screen door photo was interviewed. Shelby shot the picture of the girl purely from a photographer's perspective, without intending any disrespect, but the sister of the girl interpreted the picture as a disgrace to her family. This instance just reiterated for me how everyone interprets things differently, and even when the author of some piece of art has one certain intent, that doesn't mean that others will not interpret it completely differently. I agree with Hannahbelle that Shelby was trying to show his subjects truthfully. We just have to remember that art is subjective.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of film and documentary, we are shown a variety of images that are supposedly depicting real life, but it is important to keep in mind that the director/editor/etc. is still picking the images we see and telling a story from his or her own perspective of what "truth" is. I think it is hard to find real truth in documentary film because we all have different definitions of what truth is.
As Cwerty stated above, the way one individual reacts to a piece of art may be completely different from the way someone else reacts. One of the subjects clearly felt that Shelby's photos accurately portray life in the Kentucky holler. She felt that his art represents the "true meaning of pictures". Another felt that her family was being disgraced and disrespected. Shelby doesn't shy away from showcasing that he sets up certain situations for his photographs (the hog killing/beheading, for example) but I feel that he truly does love these people and wants to tell a story through his photographs that might not otherwise be told.
ReplyDeleteThe ultimate question here, for me, is when does the art form itself become unimportant and the subject becomes the only thing that matters? Formally, these pictures are stunning. They use the aspects of technique in order to enhance the idea, which is the ultimate goal of any visual art. The way several of the art curators criticized Adams and completely disregarded the formality of his work seemed to me a complete waste of time. Honestly, Adams could have staged each one of these pictures entirely and not even used people from the holler. If the visual result was exactly the same, would the critics have had a different opinion? I venture to say that if he presented them as a "recreation" of what life in a holler is like, he would get nothing but praise for his work. So then in this, unlike in Proust or Vertov's work, the function and content of the narrative is far more important than the ways in which the narrative is told.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletesuppose a documentary cannot contain "truth" or "realness" because of how subjective the process is in creating the film. can this also be said about photographs?
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of the blogs above. What is stuck in my mind is the statement made by Elna, when is the subject of the art more important than the art itself? I feel the photographs narrate a certain serenity and beauty that resonated with me in a greater effect than the films images of the Hollers of Kentucky. Meaning I gained more understanding from the photographs than the actual moving images, which shows how gritty and remote life is to the people of the hollers. If I saw the photographs before watching the film, I would take them for what they are. I would name them by saying that no matter where you live or walk of life you come from it’s amazing that someone can find and bring out an eccentric beauty in these images. For me there is no true meaning in the photographs by Adams there is only understanding and by understanding I mean I know nothing at all about life in a Kentucky Holler so I take it for what it is.
ReplyDeleteWe mentioned in class whether Shelby thought that, or whether we agreed with the idea that, what he was doing was art or an actual representation of the Appalachia. The documentary itself was asking us this question, and of course it is for us to decide, whether or not the critics pictured agree or not. I also feel like he was in a way doing both, which was also mentioned in class. Artists write, and create, and in this case photograph, what they know. And i feel like that is what Shelby was doing with his portraits. He came from this town, and so knows the people, and knows where to go, and because he has this ability to take photos, why not do it somewhere where you are comfortable approaching a not so easy subject matter. He, as an artist, is able to go these places that maybe others would not be able to, and so here comes his pictures.
ReplyDeleteI think yes, Trent. There is the element of the photographer or filmmaker in the scene. People will always react when they see a camera. Because of the presence of the filmmaker or photographer (even if the camera is hidden) there is always an element that will be altered by the presence of the camera, so therefore you can't really capture "truth" if that is defined by the natural state of things in a certain area.
ReplyDelete