The moving element was visually separated from the static background, and was limited in range and affecting only a clearly defined figure rather than the whole image.Īll of these animations were based around loops, sequences of images which can be played repeatedly. The predecessors of cinema also possessed discrete characteristics of space and movement. They relied on hand-painted or hand-drawn images and they were manually animated. These earlier techniques shared several characteristics.
Manovich points to the original names by which cinema was referred (kinetoscope, cinematograph, and moving pictures) as indicative of how it was understood, as the art of motion, one which superseded previous techniques for creating and displaying moving images. Is cinema no longer an indexical media technology, but rather a sub-genre of painting?
The return to the manual construction of images means that cinema can no longer be distinguished from animation. Manovich argues that the indexical identity of cinema is challenged by photorealistic computer generated images which are perfectly credible despite never having been filmed. What do you think of Manovich’s statement in which he refers to Cinema as the “art of the index” an attempt to make art out of a footprint? Does the identity of Cinema lay in its ability to record reality? Does it merely start the film rolling and record whatever happens to be in front of the lens? The development of a whole repertoire of techniques during the history of cinema (lighting, art direction, various film stocks and lenses) are ultimately rooted in attempts to obtain deposits from reality. He invokes French theorist Christopher Metz in noting that most films possess the common characteristic of telling a story, to which Manovich adds most films are live action films consisting unmodified recordings of real events which took place in real physical space. With enough time or money anything can be simulated in a computer, reducing the filming of physical reality to just one of many options available to filmmakers. Manovich argues that this focus on narrative only addresses one aspect of cinema, which is neither unique nor essential to the medium.įor Manovich the challenge presented by digital media extends beyond the issue of narrative to the very identity of cinema. In his essay “What is Digital Cinema?” Lev Manovich notes that the majority of discussion around digital cinema has focused on the possibilities of narrative interaction.