According to the head, the famous employee download the film Machine
and Pudovkin, operators, "the main artists of cinema", create new art. Therefore, they create a "new visual culture and new technology image - on canvas, but on the screen, not paint, and light.""Operators - new artists," svetovidnogo art ", as they called their skill Russian painters of the XVI century." In his book of the greatest importance "Light in art operator" Head, presenting the basic principles of the operator, explains how to highlight your subject in order to achieve their artistic image.To deal with artistic lighting, says Golovnya should be very familiar technique of shooting - equipment and film, laboratory processing, light engineering.The origins of the methodology proposed in his book, to be found in the compilation of the technical and artistic manner best Soviet operators and material download the film Machine
and contained in the statements of foreign, especially American, masters cinematography - that is to systematize the experience of operators such as Tisse, Gregg Toland, Rudy Mate or Moskvin."We think that the time when the cinematography should be enriched by his theory, his doctrine of the image of the light of his teachings, to express their views on the composition of the scene."Smut in the book analyzes the development of black and white images, the practice of lighting-up, creating an image on-screen actor in the film, lighting, scenery, as kinokadr picture film frame lighting techniques and their own work in the movies, put Pudovkin."Book Golovnya - Kyarini writes in the preface to the Italian edition of it, - a valuable work of talented and very download the film Machine
and experienced artist who in a clear and rigorous manner introduces the technique of photo-cinematic technique, considered in an artistic sense, that is, in relation to the artistic work and not in the scientific sense asstudy of the means used, that is, from the point of view of optics and sensitometry. " Carlo Ludovico Raggyanti, another scientist, who, as we have seen, stands the iconic nature of the movie - denies, in contrast to Nielsen, the spectacle and the visual arts have a common factor - the "time."In the old paper "Film and Theatre" and he sees a movie theater as an expression of a single, formally similar languages. "It should be noted that the works of painting or sculpture does not exist for the spectator who contemplates it critically.At a glance, how fast it is, do not cover the work of art in its entirety and complexity of its ties to the history of its creation. A work of art must be motivated, reproduced spectator, it must "read" them.
"This concept Raggyanti be back later in the article, entitled "Croce and cinema as art."Disagreeing with the vulgar in nature objection, "which consists in the fact that cinema is equivalent to a photo or play a passive object," he points out that just as one can not deny the artistic nature of the film just because it uses the scientific and mechanical means:"To be consistent, the same would have to be excluded from the art of the architecture ...Rather, we should find out - adds Raggyanti - should we consider cinema as art "and" how and to what extent one could defend their almost complete identity "and then" how can we accurately determine the nature of cinema.