I chose the material from Hito Steyerl, ‘In Defense of the Poor Image’, 2012, and decided to translate it in the form of Wim Crouwel and Jan van Toorn, ‘The Debate’.

The original material

The emergence of poor images reminds one of a classic Third Cinema manifesto, For an Imperfect Cinema, by Juan García Espinosa, written in Cuba in the late 1960s. [footnote Julio García Espinosa, “For an Imperfect Cinema,” trans. Julianne Burton, Jump Cut, no. 20 (1979): 24–26.] Espinosa argues for an imperfect cinema because, in his words, “perfect cinema—technically and artistically masterful—is almost always reactionary cinema.” The imperfect cinema is one that strives to overcome the divisions of labor within class society. It merges art with life and science, blurring the distinction between consumer and producer, audience and author. It insists upon its own imperfection, is popular but not consumerist, and committed without becoming bureaucratic.

In his manifesto, Espinosa also reflects on the promises of new media. He clearly predicts that the development of video technology will jeopardize the elitist position of traditional filmmakers and enable some sort of mass film production: an art of the people. Like the economy of poor images, imperfect cinema diminishes the distinctions between author and audience and merges life and art. Most of all, its visuality is resolutely compromised: blurred, amateurish, and full of artifacts.

In some way, the economy of poor images corresponds to the description of imperfect cinema, while the description of perfect cinema represents rather the concept of cinema as a flagship store. But the real and contemporary imperfect cinema is also much more ambivalent and affective than Espinosa had anticipated. On the one hand, the economy of poor images, with its immediate possibility of worldwide distribution and its ethics of remix and appropriation, enables the participation of a much larger group of producers than ever before. But this does not mean that these opportunities are only used for progressive ends. Hate speech, spam, and other rubbish make their way through digital connections as well. Digital communication has also become one of the most contested markets—a zone that has long been subjected to an ongoing original accumulation and to massive (and, to a certain extent, successful) attempts at privatization.(339 words)

The translation version

Perfect Cinema

I believe that technology and artistry are the key factors in determining whether a film deserves appreciation. Only through master-level production can a true fusion of art, science, and life be achieved. After all, cinema is not without structure — it requires professionalism and rigorous evaluation.

Imperfect Cinema

But cinema belongs to its audience. Even avant-garde films must consider their viewers. If no one watches, can it still be considered cinema itself? I remain doubtful. Imperfect cinema has its own audience — it strives to transcend the division of labor within a class-based society, blurring the boundaries between consumer and creator, viewer and author.
In this process, watching becomes a more democratic, active, and bottom-up act.

Perfect Cinema

Even when such films have an audience, I still believe that watching cinema requires a threshold. When you sit in a grand theater surrounded by Dolby sound, immersed in high-definition visuals, comfortable seating, and perfect temperature, the experience becomes a form of total art. This cannot be compared to sitting at home in front of a computer screen, with pop-up ads, banner ads, and constant buffering — not to mention how rare it is to find a truly high-definition, complete film online.

Imperfect Cinema

The elite status of traditional filmmakers has already been challenged by the rise of new media and digital video technology. As I’ve said, watching is no longer a top-down power structure — no longer a dogmatic output. Although blurry, amateurish, and flawed, it is now more convenient and widely accessible.

Perfect Cinema

Perhaps the spread of media has become faster, but the process itself is far from perfect. This technology also brings negative consequences: spam, hatred, and illegal information. Such distribution methods push the market into fierce, uncontrollable competition. If one can find free movies online, people may tolerate unpleasant ads and low-quality content — but then, what remains of cinema besides the comfort of consumption?

Imperfect Cinema

Ultimately, it still comes down to how we choose our markets. Consumption has become a form of politics. You may think your vote or spending habits are meaningless, yet they strongly influence the industry. If terrible films can achieve high box office sales simply because of celebrity actors — or even AI-generated, illogical scripts — then the meaning of creation disappears. Still, through new channels of distribution, countless original works emerge and accumulate, forming another kind of creative production on a massive scale.

Reference list

1. Liu, X. (2023). Sightings – Journal #141. [online] E-flux.com. Available at: https://www.e-flux.com/journal/141/578716/sightings.

2. Steyerl, H. (2021). In Defense of the Poor Image – Journal #10. [online] E-flux.com. Available at: https://www.e-flux.com/journal/10/61362/in-defense-of-the-poor-image.

3. Thierry Chancogne (2022). A Debate: Jan Van Toorn, Wim Crouwel. 2015 The Monacelli Press.

4. Weng, X. (2020). An Informal and Incomplete Journey – Journal #108. [online] E-flux.com. Available at: https://www.e-flux.com/journal/108/326261/an-informal-and-incomplete-journey [Accessed 6 Nov. 2025].