Humans had been always trying to find solutions in order to cope with their life. In prehistoric ages, they were trying to communicate with each other so that they tried to communicate via wall drawings, they were trying to hunt so that they made tools for hunting. All of those products, now supposed as origins of art. Or in Egypt, people used plastic arts in order to cope with their concerns about after life as Bazin states. Difference is here that, in prehistoric ages art was a tool in order to cope with their daily life, but in Egypt as Bazin states, it a tool to represent reality, or substitute for reality. Looking from Bazin’s point of view towards art first seems very simplistic, however I think he points out the origins of the problems that is stated by Guy Debord and Baudrillard. Although Bazin use the reality frame just to show the change in visual representation, he actually was on the scent of an important discovery.
Bazin says that “A very faithful drawing may actually tell us more about the model but despite the promptings of our critical intelligence it will never have the irrational power of the photograph to bear away our faith.” Through his article, he always talks about realism that people tried to reach. From early ages to invention of photography, people always tried to imitate the nature. From that perspective, photography is the most objective one and the closest to reality.
Looking at art from Bazin’s perspective towards art, makes me think of Baudrillard “simulacra”. Although in Bazin’s article trying to reach reality was a basic and innocent need, in Baudrillard’s Simulacra it the biggest threat. In past representation was simply an imitation of the origin of the real. But when we come the world of simulacra, image is no longer a representation of the real. It takes the place of the real of the origin. There is liquidation of all referentials. It is no longer an imitation problem, it is not a re-duplication of the nature.
Simulacrum is fascinating. It erases the origins so that it becomes the major fear of the iconoclasts. It was so powerful that it could have taken the place of God. It could have erased the understanding of God that only can be understood with mind and replace that understanding with signs and icons. In the case of Simulacra, only simulacra exist, there in no more God.
Representation can be a tool to tell what is real, however simulation creates false representation. It breaks the structure of the representation and destroys what is represented.
We can state four steps from representation to simulacra;
1- It is reflection of basic reality
2- It masks and perverts basic reality
3- It masks the absence of basic reality
4- It bears no relation to any reality.
To sum up, I think Bazin’s perspective towards arts was not simple nor basic.
I think he points out the origins of simulacra.