The incompleteness in the being of everyday life within the work spoke to a consciousness often ignored, one of absolute devotion and care towards every moment.  Amiri Baraka speaks about a narrative coming before an event, a constant political juggernaut that contextualizes time and space. Yet, The work of Abounaddara distributes in a political space remains revolutionary for the sake that intimacy and the unmistakable humanness is the greatest uniting narrative. The Right To The Image calls for the attention of the image and maintains the dignity and integrity of those involved with the project. I find it difficult to be at ease with the mechanicalized shooting of the camera, a term that is militarized and grew in connotation alongside the technological advancements of cinema, saving the image from violence. Walter Benjamin speaks about the purposelessness of a mechanically reproduced object as a call to politicize images. Is it possible to have an image, without its aura truly represent reality without shaping it? Philosophically, we cannot equate the eye of the camera as the eye of a human, seeing is different from watching, looking, observing. The scopophilic sense of cinema maintains that the viewer is always at odds with the subject, acutely aware that the longer they look the more they violate who they are watching. The idea of an image, the right of the image implies the possession of the image as essentially human, unmechanicalized, without the philosophical toying of the camera and exploitive practices of the medium even as an art. I don’t mean to disavowal the purposefulness behind the intimate ( and well made) images, the statement of the artist to create something personal and deep that connects us is phenomenal– a past words experience that does hint at the pull of activism and humanist activities the films call us toward. The theoretical elements of film watching often conflicts with a sense of enjoyment in the image as is. I am aware of the power structures, the shifts of ability between those in front and behind the camera. The camera and director have the privilege to cut and manipulate, move in and out of the frame, and show the story as they see fit to their interests. I am wary of any kind of artistry that claims reality or a captured “it” of the moment. Partially because I am a small person who has yet to work out their angst and other parts trained to see films as some sort of propaganda. I use the term propaganda to elaborate upon my idea of films being encoded and decoded in the time periods and modes of watching and creating.  How can a film not be the product of the world surrounding it that made it? How can you capture the everyday without distancing yourself far away from the control of spontaneity in not creating a moment? The films speak of a fascination with the aesthetics of closeness, humanness, confounding time and spaceness; but at a certain point we must question if the aestheticization is flattening something into less dimensions. Perhaps the better question to ask becomes how do we aestheticize and de-aestheticize to accept intentionality of art? Or how do we draw the distinction between aestheticization and the ugly/dirt/contamination that beauty is perennially covering up?

Advertisements