a shoot with a philospher a few months ago and the discussion came upon technical perfection. He mentioned that Americans are often obsessed with technical perfection. He himself was less concerned about technical perfection: getting the message across was more important to him.
His words got me thinking: was I obsessed with technical perfection? Looking at my work, I would not draw that conclusion ;-) I have a lot to learn. I am far from perfect and so is my work. But I do strive for a certain aesthetic ideal. What that is, I cannot define and it is certainly different for every project. But there are certain qualities I like. To name a cliché, I like (as many of us) most of Philip Bloom's aesthetic approach to shooting video. He makes 'everyday things' look extraordinary. His work is visually subtle, warm, never over the top. And most importantly, it is 'real'. In the sense that it is not contrived. It stems from genuine curiosity. But I'm digressing. Good form = content, is perhaps what I'm trying to say.
I saw a film at IDFA (International Documentary Festival Amsterdam) and it won the Public and Special Jury Award. It's called '5 broken camera's'. (great title) and tells the story of a Palestinian filming his life, his family, his village and the suffering they experience. The camera work is not pretty. It is point and shoot footage. But this Palestinian man was not interested in making aesthetically pleasing pictures while filming the bloody history of his village & people.
I was moved to tears by this film.
It is is good to strive for technical perfection. But beware of preoccupation with looks and styles. Pleasing aesthetics can provide a momentary rush but a true story will leave a lasting impression.