A love letter to Lindsay Lohan - and the moving image
Posted by Justin Case — 1 Jun 2011
The Guardian's Jonathan Jones reviews Richard Phillips's intimate filmed portrait of Lindsay Lohan, which Jones claims shows how the medium is artistically superior to the photograph.
In his recent piece for The Guardian, Jonathan Jones states "The moving image is much more artistically interesting than the still photograph, to me anyway. The photographic image is not as rich as a painting or a drawing - until it starts to move."
Offering a new 98-second filmed portrait of Lindsay Lohan created by Richard Phillips, which premieres at The Venice Biennale as notional proof of his opinion, Jones details other 'motion picture portraits' and holds this art form out as generally superior portraiture, with greater richness, emotion and depth than possible with still images.
Phillips' Lohan film, in particular, is a bit surreal. Check it out for yourself, embedded above. In an almost (in my opinion) desperate attempt to romanticize the fallen child-star, Phillips delivers a near caricature in a loosely flowing series of frames that seems preoccupied with Lohan drenched and distracted. All the while, the viewer can't shake the recall of Lohan's myriad legal and substance issues.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but just because you can capture multiple frames of a subject in motion doesn't mean that motion portraiture is superior in any way to a well done still. Jones' contention that this piece, in particular, is any kind of standout example is simply misguided.
What do you think... about the Lohan piece in particular and about motion portraiture, generally?