Mixed feelings over mixed media, portraying as a photographer a moving image.
One of the main difference between film and photography is time, where video predominantly records time passing, photography extracts a moment and denies the further time-factor. What if you film photographically and look for 'stills' instead of movement. What if you take away the filmic? What if you mix it up with digital effects to question old references of art and photography? Is it still fair to speak of a portrait? And because you gain text, words, sounds, music inside 'the photograph' itself which a video almost cannot do without, saying it is still photography becomes an empty statement? Is there a translation or transformation possible beyond 'a photographic film' or 'a filmic photograph'?
As boundaries shift new thoughts are needed.
Media used: lens, camera, computer, light, digital effects, sound, tapes, software
Mediators passed: air, human, cables, the net
With special thanks to my father for his patience and collaboration.
Idea, execution, edited, soundscaped and brought to you by: Maarten Zeehandelaar and all the other actors mentioned above