Morgan looked at Andre Bazin’s key work, which has been misinterpreted and mainly dismissed due to his brilliance and skill in grappling with tough difficulties of style and ontology. A more nuanced reading of Bazin reveals components of the classical theory that are crucial for thinking about images, regardless of how they are created. He argues that the ontology of photography and the realism of cinema are inextricably linked (Bazin, “The Ontology of the Photographic Image” 65). Second, Bazin offers an ontology of the photographic image, which is best grasped as a dedication to the mechanical element of the camera’s recording criteria. Morgan, on the other hand, believes that both ideas should be rejected (443). This paper focuses on the critical analysis of Bazin’s ontology and the realist aesthetic approach of Daniel Morgan.
Bazin begins by demonstrating how ancient Egyptians practiced embalming, which involves preserving bodies from deterioration following mummification, whereas Morgan connects it to the beginnings of plastic art. A person or a community must engage in whatever activity suits their desires. This is also a basic psychological urge of a person to outplay time, which is satisfied by preserving the body. Their goal was to defeat death, which was impossible in real life but could be accomplished by painting images of the deceased to maintain their lives, as Louis XIV was shown to have done (Bazin, “The Ontology of the Photographic Image” 6). As a result, photography has a tight connection with creative forms that portray a fixation on reality.
The index argument proves that the iconic characteristics of a picture are a consequence of its indexical status. As a result, if the object-photograph relationship is indexical, three incidents occur. Firstly, a picture alludes to a prior reality that exists “behind” the image. Morgan distinguishes between the object and the image from an ontological standpoint. Secondly, the activity or item shown in a picture occurred before. This is a characteristic of indexical signals in general: a gunshot hole denotes a previous bullet, whereas the gait of a sailor denotes sea time spent. This theory shows that a picture is a direct representation of a past state of things; it is a record of how items appeared at the moment the image was taken.
Thirdly, individuals must be aware of how it was created and its standing as an indexical indication to interpret a picture properly. People think that a picture accurately depicts things in front of recording at a previous period, not due to similarity criteria, but due to their understanding of how the picture was created. People’s understanding allows “the irrational force of the picture to bear away our trust” (Bazin, “The Ontology of the Photographic Image” 79). If people recognize the production process, a direct relationship depicted between object and image—it is obvious that what they see is true to what was there.
Additionally, evidence supporting the index argument is presented in the article on “Ontology.” Since the paintings of pictures do not have a correlational relationship to reality, the human hand interfering raises the possibility of a shadow of a doubt. It is not the fact that there is important mediation; a picture may do this as well; rather, it is the fact that this intervention is deliberate and human; the painting’s sign is not indexical. From Bazin’s central position, the index argument’s fundamental premise is that the picture is created by a causal process that is dependent on the generation process rather than similarity criteria for its impact (Bazin, “The Ontology of the Photographic Image“). Bazin, on the other hand, sees it as the model that makes comprehension difficult.
As a result of critical analysis, Bazin is not claiming that photographic objects exist in Kant’s ontological world—the domain of items in and of oneself that photography gives us access to a metaphysical realm. Morgan’s goal in making the link and implying the significance of hearing an affinity with Kantian twists of language is to emphasize how far photographic things are outside Bazin’s regular perception.
Andre Bazin created an essential aesthetic based on the fundamental nature of cinemas, which was his understanding. In his Ontology study, Bazin figures out the practices in the industry of cinema. (Bazin, “The Ontology of the Photographic Image” 65). Therefore, this is based on the research of the precise story being legitimate. As a consequence, the makers of films have an advantage when utilizing photos in their work. On the basis of the development of cinematic language, he criticizes the assumptions in connection to the situations engaged in the filmmaking activity. Therefore, the applicability of the index, according to Bazin, is mainly limited to the subjects for which the primary aim of filmmaking was recreating reality (“The Evolution of the Language of Cinema” 26). As a result, the index reaps the advantages of the physicality link, which is correlated with the relationship it does not exhibit.
The ontological realism of Bazin indicates that aesthetics has been chastised for their lack of theoretical underpinnings. Bazin also utilized his sensitivity aspect and experience in the film platform to teach problems of the theoretical period. (Bazin, “The Ontology of the Photographic Image” 5). Furthermore, cinema’s epistemological foundation was heavily dependent on Bazin’s treatment of industry instances (Thompson et al.) In the processing and interpretation of photographs, the index was crucial, and this was centered on the “ontology of the photographic image perspective.”
Charles Sanders puts it this way: The penetrating triadic idea symbolized Bazin’s work into focus, as the photographic reproduction connection is interpreted in this work. Thus, the index proved the link between representing the human presence and the index. To understand Bazin’s photographic or cinematographic image, one must first understand what it entails. In comprehending Bazin’s cinematographic or photographic image, one must have the basis of the understanding of the components. The belief of Bazin was obviously founded on the reality of the delineation of the preferred cinematics aesthetics. In 1928, understanding the temple of images was not always reasonable. Bazin’s alternative version’s stylistic theory is very explicit on the role of ‘faith in the image’ against ‘faith in reality in the long run of the filmmakers in the industry.’ ‘Faith in the picture’ indicates the ability to perceive or to be portrayed as an item on a screen. The image’s adaptability and the materials needed for modification were kept in record. Bazin minimized the significance of sound in the movie due to the translation.
The music impacted the entire impression, which corresponded to Bazin’s film business perspective (Thompson et al.). Bazin, for example, recognizes the criteria necessary to guarantee that classical excellence was merged with the substance and methods utilized for the benefit of the aesthetic conditions in Jezebel. Rather than identifying a collection of traits, realism defines a film’s unique approach to the ontological basis of its medium and its fundamental realities. Morgan argued that the concept was best understood in terms of acknowledgment. As a result, many realized that the film’s style is the only way to understand it (Morgan 470). Ingrid Bergman’s (and her imagination’s) bodily contact with the sculptures is at risk in Viaggio in Italia, for example (Brunette 413). In Bazin’s work, realism is used to analyze an image. Aspects of realism linked in film studies with a view of exploitation in the historical visual revolution are championed by Bazin in Jean Renoir’s cinema and William Wyler’s The Little Foxes (1941) (Bazin, “William Wyler or the Jansenist of Mise en Scene” 50). The basement was on the leaps of faith in Andre Bazin’s film sector.
Consequently, both film theorists and makers wanted to evaluate the quality of the used method for the benefit of time and space since cinema shows the recording capacity and its inherent nature. (Bazin, “The Ontology of the Photographic Image” 55). Bazin claims that the results were ‘unfilmic’ in the rules of the game and the best years of our lives. They were ‘theatrical,’ whereas the editing offered was ipso facto since it reflected the cinematography. Contrarily, Bazin’s ideas are in keeping with the cinematography essence that was mostly used for the field’s depth.
Bazin’s realism is centered on accepting the existence of the physical world. Creating a style that acknowledges the truth conveyed by the film’s photographic base is essential if the film is to be considered realistic. When a film is shown with a photograph, it generates what Bazin refers to as an “accidental fact,” which is a particular interpretation of the captured photograph in reality (Bazin, “The Evolution of the Language of Cinema” 23). Even though movies are based on photographs, they must accept that they have an ontological foundation in reality. They accomplish this by depicting specific people, objects, or locations in the environment and then doing something with them—for example, conveying feelings about them or interpreting them—in a creative manner.
On the other hand, Bazin gives a naive perspective on reality and fails to define what he means by the phrase. Ontology, as seen through the lens of object-oriented ontology, distinguishes between presence and being, which Bazin confuses. The sensations and perceptions that individuals experience are what they see, but the real object is hidden. Bazin, on the other hand, believes that people get what they see. He considers the photographic picture to be a brand-new item and a real entity in its own right, a representation of reality in Bazin’s eyes. He makes the assumption that all visuals are literal representations that the touch of a man has not altered.
Thus, Bazin makes no acknowledgment of the possibility that the camera could be looking in both directions — (at the item as well as at the photographer). In object-oriented ontology, the object is bigger than the parts (the photographer, the subject, and the image itself), and it is less than the sum of its consequences (the effects of the image). In addition to photographs, which represent a link between the photographer and the attributes of an object – its essence – there is a reality that exists outside of the photographs. Thus, it is impossible to express all of the consequences a photographic image could have in a limited space; for example, it might be displayed on someone’s wall or used for certain commercial goals.
Works Cited
Bazin, André. “The Evolution of the Language of Cinema.” What Is Cinema? Volume I. University of California Press, 2004, pp. 23-40.
Bazin, André. The Ontology of the Photographic Image. University of California Press, 2004.
Bazin, Andre. “William Wyler or the Jansenist of Mise en Scene.” Realism and the Cinema, 1980, vol.5, no.2. pp. 36-52.
Brunette, Peter. “Filmography.” Roberto Rossellini. University of California Press, 2020.
Morgan, Daniel. “Rethinking Bazin: Ontology and Realist Aesthetics.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 32, no. 3, 2006, pp. 443-481.
Thompson, Kristin, David Bordwell, and Jeff Smith. Film history: An introduction. vol. 205, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003.