On Deleuze: Still vs. Moving images

In The Movement-Image, Gilles Deleuze comments on Bergson’s third thesis concerning movement and change. His analysis of Bergson’s thesis states that “not only is the instant an immobile section of movement, but movement is a mobile section of duration, that is, of the Whole, or of a whole” (p. 8). This idea seems to suggest that a moving image provides greater context and understanding than a still image. As I understand it the whole that Deleuze refers to seems to be the entirety of reality. The implications of this are vast indeed. If moving images come closer to the whole or the full truth of a situation, then are they a superior medium than still images? I would say that this must be debated with an additional factor in mind: the human observer. While it may be true that moving images objectively provide more information, this may not translate to increased understanding. The value of a certain medium must also be considered from a subjective perspective. What is its effect on the observer? Mediums are useless unless they evoke a reaction in the mind of the observer. Therefore, I propose that a more relevant factor in considering what medium more closely approaches the whole would be which medium allows the observer to more closely embrace the whole. On the one hand, the moving image moves at its own pace. It does not wait for the observer. It is preprogrammed independent of the needs of the observer. It demands that the observer work more intensely to absorb its content. On the other hand, the still image allows the observer to move at her own pace. When observing a still image, the observer is not constantly bombarded with new information. Rather, the observer is free to study the image at his leisure. The observer has a greater opportunity to project herself into the image. If one were to view a moving image of a horse running, one would have a good understanding of what a horse looks like when it runs. If, on the other hand, one were to view a still image of a horse running, one would be able to project himself into the horse. One could more fully imagine the sense of speed and freedom the horse would feel. I would argue that the observer would have a greater emotional or visceral understanding of what running means to the horse. It may be that this is the greater truth, and closer to the Whole.