Bazin: The Ontology of the Photographic Image

In his essay "The Ontology of the Photographic Image" Andre Bazin explores the creation of the photographic image and its relations to other plastic arts, specifically painting. He theorizes that plastic arts spawned from a mummy complex, or an obsession with preserving a reality without having time to burden it. He calls this, "the preservation of life by a representation of life." (10). He then describes the two different "ambitions" of painting that came about: "one, primarily aesthetic, namely the expression of spiritual reality wherein the symbol transcended its model; the other, purely psychological, namely the duplication of the world outside." (11). He separates these as a need for illusion and a need for reality. He then goes on to say that paintings, because of their subjective nature, were forced into a world of illusion and could never be taken as true reality. This did not satisfy, "our obsession with realism." (12), as Bazin puts it. This obsession wouldn't be satisfied until the invention of the camera and with it, the photograph, which was completely free from the influence of man, at least in its actual reproduction, which meant it had to be taken as reality. These then freed up other plastic artists to drop the obsession of perfectly producing reality, an important happening no doubt. In fact, Bazin says, and I'm not sure if I believe him, "photography is clearly the most important event in the history of plastic arts." (16). It's possible that he isn't being disingenuous when he says this, but it's hard to get a good read on him. I think the key to this entire essay lies in the last line. "On the other hand, of course, cinema is also a language." (16). This metaphor would suggest that, like a language, cinema is totally different depending on where you are, who you're talking to, what you're talking about, etc. which would then imply that Bazin is purposely discrediting his interpretation. Having said that, if it is all just an interpretation (it is), then it shouldn't carry any weight in terms of being fact, because it's just an opinion. I'm very troubled/intrigued by this line. Why the hell is it there?