Reaction to Susan Sontag's "On Photography"

Susan Sontag's "On Photography" counter-argues John Berger's claim that the camera doesn't capture reality--she states that it DOES capture reality, as well as the expression of the subject. Sontag also states "photographs may be more memorable than moving pictures"--which is an interesting statement, since it holds merit in certain situations, but not in others.

Photographs CAN be more memorable than moving pictures when the still picture is manipulated to make an impact and BE more memorable than a moving picture. For instance, still photos of traffic fatalities have more of an impact than moving films of fatalities because with film, it takes more time to register the tragedy. A perfect example is the "Red Asphalt" films that are shown in driving school--footage of medics removing fragments of a person's brain is shown before students learning to drive, however, the shot is so quick and jumpy, the students are left to ask themselves, "Those are brains?" In my experience, were I not TOLD that the person's brain was getting picked up from the ground, I would have never guessed. Now, had I been shown a still picture of the same incident, THEN I would have put two and two together much faster because there is less movement to distract from the main subject matter.

To counter-argue THAT, however, is the existence of the recent film, Avatar. Pictures of the film, apparently, don't do it justice. I have yet to see the film, but the recognition and box-office profit has proved one thing to me--the visuals are amazing...in full moving picture format on a large screen. This attests to the statement that photographs are NOT more memorable than moving pictures.

Here is my belief--that nothing can beat the actual memory of the experience. I could take as many pictures as I want of a concert of my favorite band, and have reminders forever. But then I'd be left with nothing but quick snapshots and memories of taking pictures at said concert. Meanwhile, actually being there and participating in all the shenanigans that go on at the concert(it's a form of heavy metal, usually), to me, is a much more rewarding experience.
The same goes for video footage, my Dad was equipped with a video camera wherever he went when I was small--the beach, Sea World, Disneyland, a local carousel, Mammoth Mountain...the list goes on. But whatever footage he has of these events do little to summon up what it was REALLY like to be there--the camera failed to capture the feeling I had as a toddler experiencing snow for the first time, simply because the thing wasn't on. The footage of the carousel with my little sister riding on it showcases nothing more than a toddler going around on a clanky old attraction with 50 other people on it.

The camera, whether capturing still images or moving images, does NOT capture reality, it captures a fleeting moment or two that serves as a mere REMINDER of the experiences showcased in the film, and nothing more.