| In our mind a vision of heavy,
baroque monstrosity may immediately appear, carved and gold leaved, thicker
than the picture width. Or the opposite: a sure self negation, a scissor
cut photograph. Regardless of what we envision when saying the word, frame
is of a primary significance. Not only as one of the first steps in transforming
the reality, but, moreover, a first element of the composition itself,
its beginning and end. Just as it is hard to claim the existence of a composition
without some kind of frame - even an imaginary one - it is, on the other
side, somewhat curiously possible to talk about a composition consisting
of the frame alone. If there is anything "divine" about the frame, it is
surely not some transcendent quality, but rather a simple fact that it
fundamentally defines a function of everything within its bounds. There
are two basic conceptions of the frame in viewing of an image. The first
in evolution, which largely rejects the above executed glorification, happens
in the time of first contacts with the medium - when the only recognizable
and trustworthy element remains the reality. This is frame as a WINDOW
INTO THE WORLD. Belonging to a phase of not yet absolved medium and general
inclination towards the complete illusion of reality, it tries to somewhat
ignore the medium's existence. This tendency is mostly caused by the content
of the rational in approach (the idea of a "window" is easier to be noticed
in adults than in children or with primitive cultures), and, on the other
side, by the degree of illusionistic perfection the medium is capable of
- the believability of the reality level that it can recreate. From this
stems the extraordinary tendency of self - concealment the film has (and
even some forms of the theater!). Surely, this is mostly intentional,
used, and dealt with, but one may argue that by removing the attention
from the medium itself we eliminate many of its inherent expressive traits
- mostly those higher up the evolution ladder. To sum it up, perception
of the frame as a window assumes that the image is a part of the larger
whole, a part limited by necessity - imperfection - of a frame. Looking
for some examples, the painting has gone a long way in this view, but as
a more obvious, purer example, we may take the film, photography - any
framed piece of what we know was larger - most likely, the reality. The frame perceived as an END OF THE WORLD is the second viewing approach. Seemingly higher in the evolutionary order, it is indicatively found in the very beginnings of development, human race and individual alike. The latter lack of this approach we can therefore attribute to some development, most likely towards the importance of real and rational, which, for all our reasons, seems a mistake. This approach happens in the state of an introvert intuition, when we measure everything by the model of our own psyche. An image for itself (and for us even more...) is an idea, "inside" - not an objective reality "outside". An image is world as a whole, and its borders are the borders of the world: behind, only nothingness exists. The connection of the image with its frame is unbreakable; metaphysically, the idea as a world itself includes the existence of borders - in infinity. That may serve as a best definition of frame in this conception. Whatever touches the frame, touches infinity; if something crosses over, it crosses into nothingness. The second cause of perceiving the frame as the end is an understanding and awareness of the medium - attention towards the medium itself. This does not necessarily mean the loss of experience supplied by illusion, since awareness is the key here, and should work to preserve that segment. It rather means an absorption, anticipation of the medium, end of that stubborn ignorance which looks aside, just to clinch onto reality. This particular awareness of the frame makes the foundation for the many elements of composition - directly, the felling of every point within the image in an active, dynamic mutual relation with the frame. The indivisible unity of frame with the image is a precondition for a health and strength of all the forces within the composition. As if there is a way to lessen this contact, imagine some rotting tumorous tissue in that nonexisting space in between the frame and the image, which causes the complete impurity and absence of strength: but here we are talking metaphysics again, and not perception (that we can give examples for) - just in attempt to describe the emotion contained in this relation. As for the examples of frame being the end of the world - image, we can find them in the child drawings, most of the 20 century painting, pure photography, and even sometimes in film, in the advanced use of static camera (Alain Tanner). And just as another typical warning label, let me quickly note of the danger coming out in mixing of these two conceptions of the frame - quite frequent in the works that balance between the dominance of the reality and the medium: obviously, these are radical differences even in the simplest of details. |
|||
| the frame | |||
|
|
|||
   |
|||
