From letters to life size: Wax museums, civil war reenactments and revolutionary battle signs—the battle of realism (Eco, 11)
The goal of recreation is a human response to the old. Writing has always been the barometer for memorialising but never the way of connection. The best way to recall something is for human reenactment. From texts to talk. From words to warrior.
Human recollection is adorning the old with profound respect. The old is written to recapture that which was. Documenting the events as they pass by. A historical layer of recall and republication. With text, the past will never die. It will remain chained to its marvellous creation. It may be lost but will remain forever. Passed down and educated. Texts are simple and persuasive. They require little talent. Legibility and maybe some poetic charm. Documentation is tedious if not enticed with some embellished licence. It is not lying but illustrating the facts with some flare. Giving a more robust pathos to the historical action. Not just some event but dramatically underscored. Hyping the past with attributes of charismatic sensitivity and elements of nostalgia. The text is great but it is only the start.
Symbols preceded text but the complexity of events and speech gave rise to writing. Able to convey details in a simplistic manner. A shared tongue for all to understand—though to some degree foreign to those who do not speak the language. Yet shared words across time can help mimic speech with phonetics and syntax. Words replaced the symbol. The symbol didn’t speak while words did. Yet symbols never died. They remained and bore the words some visualisation. The symbol had always acted as a medium between the event. Yet its lack of terminology lacked an explanation. Symbols were but pictures filled with incomprehensible meaning. Only the contemporary society could decode causing a terrible problem for descendants. Words instead salvaged meaning by adapting the prose over time. Even with a new generation the older text need only be refined. There may be some lettering changes but a translation by a descendent could be achieved due to similarities between the two cultures.
With documentation, symbols were hidden behind words. Just like fiction, the world building was achieved in the reader’s mind. Each would create their own figures in their imagination. Yet the lack of understanding prevented descendants from truly comprehending. What exactly is this tool or building look like? What exactly does this mean? Researchers could find patterns and erect a fascinating possibility. One that the reader may have either never picked up on or had little extensive study to calibrate such a possibility. Documentaries as a perfect modern example act as the visual of the text. Yet not the whole text. The text only provides certain aspects. The perspective of the writer. Authors at times do not document every angle or add some embellishment for some serious engagement. Therefore it is important for the documentary to fill in the gaps. If the documentary concerns the life of a certain individual all documentation must be analysed and then cross examined with other details. The honesty surrounding the a documentary is extensive research to provide the accurate portrayal of the event. What would they be wearing, where would they be stationed and who else would be pictured.
The first example illustration was art. Art painted and sculpted replicas of the satires administered. Whether it be horned Moses or Jesus’ last supper. The illustration follows the artist’s intent. Just as documentation has its bias so does artwork. There is a cultivation of a perspective but even more so with art is the power of the visual. One may read of horned Moses or even hear a lecture of it but seeing it, is a whole other level. It imprints the image into the mind. This must be the case as it is to be canvassed. This is not some artist’s idea but a realistic portrayal of the event. If other art of portraits is the petition to engrave history so too the artist is a historian. Just as an author can write Napoleon was six feet so too an artist can depict Napoleon as six feet. The artist as well as the author have a duty to parlay history but doing so doesn’t mean it is accurate. Nevertheless, the presentation of the visual is more profound. Seeing a painting is the model day camera. It is the event as best copied possible.
Artworks of events, especially those committed by later artists or inexperienced, is the modern documentary. Unlike a camera which captures the person as they are (this can even be altered) the artist of a past event uses his knowledge like Michelangelo’s Moses. The glamorous art in the Sistine Chapel was marked by understanding of text interpretation. Using one’s own imagination with available data furthers this theme. The fact that Jesus was drawn as a European is dually a fossilised imagination centred on portraying an idea. The embellishment whether biased or not. It may be that none of the texts depict his skin tone nor his height. Yet knowing he was born of Middle Eastern descent doesn’t make him white or black. He probably looked like an Arab or a Sephardi Jew. The painting of the Last Supper fulfilled the textual quota but not the colourful atmosphere. A painting can be embellished whether intentionally or incidentally. Still, this visual sticks with the seeker. Jesus was of this skin complexion since that is how he is drawn despite that it is most probably incorrect.
The visual provides the imagery. Not only is it persuasively powerful but it is conceptually powerful. How to relive the old is through action. A documentary on the revolutionary war provides the action as it played out. Portraying the text in a live action flick. Taking the Harry Potter book and putting it on the big screen. Unlike book to movie formulations, the diary to documentary is considerably more complex. Hitting all the angles. Visual effects are greatly calculated and condensed. The goal of the documentary is to educate not to just enjoy. It is not to bombard the viewer with cool CGI but rather present the narrative. Different goals with different narration. Yet the visual is still on a screen. The viewer stands far from the action. He is watching the action unfold in front of him. Yet he is only a bystander taking in the sights as if he were looking at photographs. He is passive, sitting back and enjoying the scenery. The recreation as his imagination visualises opposite him.
This is not to say that documentaries cannot be biased. They are visual recreations of the past and therefore are cultivated by actors not actual persons. Yet unlike the Netflix dramas, documentaries supposedly hold to a code. Yet biases are present in any time of historical paradigm. The place of the documentary is to highlight the textual material and relive in. To take Homer's Troy and throw Brad Pitt in it (though not a documentary in its own right) is to add some dramatic flare for viewer engagement. While being mostly right doesn't make it all right. The issue with documentaries is that for the ignorant viewer the a priori trust in the presentation is a false hope. At least Michelangelo presented it as he thought. Documentaries are not for the artist but for the viewership. Therefore there needs to be a profit made as well as an agenda imposed. Still the visual impact regards the truth seen rather than read. The documentary not only has its trust but it also has its charm. It is something to be weary even though it looks all too real.
Documentaries provide the restarted visual but are fictional. They are on a screen. Instead, civil war reenactments or colonial mock up areas. The participants dress up and arrange the lifestyle like they did in those eras. Head to Jamestown to see the character of a colonist back in the premodern era. Their appearance and their methods. Yet these colonial areas are found on the edge of one’s town. Sometimes the city does so for the sake of memory. An interesting outlet for a reminder despite the Suburban disposition. Southerners reflect on the Civl War with all the garb and weapons to truly grasp the event. Reenactments isn’t always for the viewer whether in person or on social media. The enjoyment by the participant in reviewing history is to partake in a memorial aspect. No longer a viewer but an engaged element. Carrying a fake gun dressed in blue with long stockings to imitate the founders. The goal is not always the viewer but the participant. Yet for the viewer its lack of cinematic joy. Its realistic vibe hinges on the awkward unprofessional mark. Lacking proper choreography means natural. The visual feels different. It feels made up but it also feels honest.
No longer does text remain simple script. The visual has become more realistic with its profound emphasis on picture. The ability to display an illustration with such dexterity. To be profoundly inspired by the actions happening in the moment. What occurred centuries prior to be displayed to the viewer with such esteem. Bringing the text to life.
No comments:
Post a Comment