I saw a television commercial over the weekend that adverised a new digital camera with (I guess) more advanced "movie" capabilities than many of the currently-available consumer digital cameras on the market right now.
The commercial emphasized moving images over still images, and seemed intent on persuading potential buyers that still photographs are so..."yesterday".
It's certainly nothing new to want to make "home-movies" of life's special occasions; weddings, graduations, performances, etc.--but advertising a camera by suggesting that moving images are superiour to still imagery, is something I don't remember seeing before in an advertisement.
There is a place for both moving and still imagery; a place for home movies (& commercial motion pictures!), just as there is a place for drawings, paintings, photographs, and other forms of still imagery.
I'm not worried that a commercial for a consumer-level digital camera is going to cause too many folks to lose their ability to appreciate "still" imagery. Certainly, afficianados are not going to stop making and/or enjoying (still) photographs, paintings, or (still) digital imagery.
But, if the notion that still imagery is "antiquated" takes hold to the point that only afficianados remain interested in still imagery, we will have "lost" something that has been essential to artistic contemplation for millennia.
I was surprised, disappointed (and saddened) that an advertising agency would view this approach as appropriate to selling something. After all, when the new model year's digital cameras hit the stores, this commercial will be replaced with a new one, too.
But, if the idea that moving imagery is "better" than still images takes hold, it could be around far longer.
That's certainly not a good thing (in my opinion, anyway!)