THOUGH I am not a very old man, and may be considered by some to actually be in the infancy of life, I have noticed that the prime experiences which have contributed to my own personal sense of enlightenment and liberation of consciousness were not in the Martial Arts, Poetry, Philosophy, any athletic practice or even mechanical experiments. It was, rather, in the humble discipline of Cinematography. Despite my complex interest in a wide variety of trades, I somehow have come always graciously back to the art of communicating with motion pictures.
I suppose this practice often seemed to feel familiar - that I hadn't strayed too far - because, after all, I could always come home to it. But somewhere in between fighting for the ability to become a cinematic auteur and struggling through the all too familiar stage called adolescence, I found something more profound than I could ever have anticipated through a series of abstract realizations that led me, perhaps accidentally, to what I can only deem proficiency in any craft.
Ultimately, what I see that Mainstream cinema lacks is recognition of philosophic principles inherent in the exploration of the human condition. To make art - at a certain level - is to be human. Particularly, the craft of cinema production, to my eyes, seems to be missing the aesthetic technique and - even beauty of so many other disciplines. Thus, it would seem that the art of cinematography could gain much from adherence to philosophic interpretations of Eastern Principles - specifically the mentalities associated with the Zen philosopher.
Of foremost importance in describing the possible benefit for this filmmaking talent is the distinction between amateur and professional crafts. It is not hard for one to introduce oneself as a filmmaker or cinematographer - it is, however, much more strenuous to prove this assertion and the self-consciousness that accompanies investigation of this subject leads to the conclusion that a person's self-attribution is largely derived from their point of view.
Long has our western culture - just as eastern - found joy in hobbies. A specific example being outdoor activities, such as fishing. How does one determine whether or not one is a professional or amateur fisherman? The answer is simple. If one is paid to fish they are professional. Yet, can there be varying degrees of professionality? Say if one is paid to fish, but this is not their chief source of income? Either way, paid or not, I have sometimes heard the colloquial expression, "catching fish is not as important as fishing," or more simply, "it is not about the fish, it is about fishing." After a certain point, the art of assembling a shot is, at this craft's most basic level, more important than recording even a single image.
It is for this reason I say the hobbyist is no more official than the professional craftsman for an artist is measured through his form, not his pocketbook.
Therefore, why has the craft of cinematic photography escaped such similar sentiments. Loud is the filmmaker who boasts of his ornate finished sequence, though - it must be asked - how did he arrive at such a composition? What impact does the act of filming have an a film? How can a painter of cinema lose himself in his practice as the bumble fisherman did long ago and thereby find the ultimate form and the ultimate image.
