I read a post the other day on a wedding videography board that was discussing the use of Dutch shots. For those unfamiliar with the term, these are off-axis shots. The tilted perspective tends to be very dramatic in feel, which is why movies usually use them to convey imbalance. In wedding videos, it is more often done for style instead of substance. I've been guilty of doing the latter, I confess. The post asserted that we, as wedding videographers, should avoid Dutch shots, because they were trendy and focus on more timeless technique. I disagree. The idea that we should omit a creative option simply because it is "trendy" is dogmatic. Used properly, it lends drama and perspective, creating a layer of depth that might otherwise be missing.

Now, I'd love to say that I've always been one to buck the trend, but I have to admit that I'm as much a victim to style as the next guy. I suppose the real question in my mind isn't about whether we should use Dutch shots or not, but really, is anything timeless? I read the phrase "timeless wedding videos" on a regular basis. I've probably even used it myself, but it still bothers me to no end. Timeless – it's as if there were some artistic "right" that is immune to the winds of change. If you ask me, it's just the opposite. It's exactly because things address and reflect the culture and time in which they were created that they are as good as they are. And, really, is anything truly timeless?

I was watching the Godfather with my wife not too long ago. She commented that it was stylistically dated, though she still enjoyed the movie. I couldn't believe my ears. "What? The Godfather? It's a classic!" And it is a classic. But I had to admit that its look indicated that it was quite clearly created over two decades ago. And that's not a bad thing. It does nothing to diminish the impact of Chinatown, The Graduate, or Battleship Potemkin that they look "old." Their quality is fully perceptible. But, we can't look at them in the vacuum of "timelessness." Rather, it is necessary to understand the era in which they were created to truly appreciate their brilliance. This is the nature of communication and art. If Rothko and Rembrandt switched eras, neither would have been recognized. Rothko would be incomprehensible, and Rembrandt would be pedestrian. It is the time in which we exist that gives context and meaning to the styles we adopt. This is true in literature, art, and with no exception, wedding videography.

Now, as a digression, I can't help but wonder if trying to find the timeless is a bit of an illusory exercise. Some things seem never to go out of style, while other things leave fast, but who's to know? And who's to say? And even if "timeless" did exist, is it better to have a wedding video that you loved for 5 years, but stop watching after a decade? Or is it better to have a product that you never really enjoyed enough to watch that much in the first place? If the answer is the former, then I figure a person should just take what they like.

More significantly, I believe that for each trend, there is a cultural reaction that endures. Things change, and as a society, we assimilate these changes, which in turn alter the way we perceive. That is the cycle and the process. This means that there will never be an objective standard to judge stylistic merit. In other words, there never will be a stylistic sense of "timeless." Communication changes. There is that which is good and that which is bad, but there is no way to pigeonhole excellence and failure into simple style. To borrow a phrase from Duke Ellington, it is beyond category.