Humping The (new) Media Landscape

The Immediate Picture

photo courtesy Beth Chucker

 

In my last post, I was writing about how the current ubiquity of cameras might be effecting our behaviors and thinking. Now, I want to look at how the incredibly useful immediacy of digital photography brings with it new challenges.

The speed at which the entire process happens, from documentation to distribution has collapsed into a singular activity. This does not allow for the focusing of temperament that was fundamental to an earlier era of photography.

Today, the path from taking of image to distribution of image, has been almost entirely eradicated but for a few bits and seconds. The speed of this digital distribution of images, has several notable effects. In its immediate infinite reproduction, the digital photo speeds up the process by which powerful images, are rendered impotent. Digital images can go from taboo to kitsch over the course of a day. What is shocking in the morning papers turns to absurdism on an LOL poster in the afternoon and becomes commerce when sold on a tshirt later that the evening. What is missing is the process is time for reflection.

But, what about that Decisive Moment, as Cartier Bresson famously described the moment of taking a photo,  "the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event as well as the precise organization of forms which gives that event its proper expression."?

 Well, first of all, to understand what was meant, you have to acknowledeg that this comes from a man who would sit behind his camera in the middle of an intersection for hours, waiting for such a moment to happen in his carefully composed frame.

Bresson said that photographers should think before and after but never during the actual moment of making a photograph. A digital camera user is not given the time to do so. There is only action, all moments are reactive and none reflective. This relentless speed eliminates room for contemplating, the ethical or moral issues of making and distributing a specific image are not considered except in hindsight.

With digital photography, there is little room for human decision, we point and click, to take the image and then point and click again to share it with the world. It is so simple and painless that there is no reason to question why this subject or what effect each image may have. If it pleases the person taking the image at that instant, that is sufficient. We have a historical habit to use technology to distance ourselves from responsibility, imbuing machinery with identity and volition so as not to have to accept that machines are only an expression of ourselves. There is no "Artificial Intelligence" in these mechanisms, photos are made by a machine but we "point and click" the device to create the picture and and now we do the same to broadcast them. A claim of neutrality in photographs, and this extends into our new digital image, is irresponsible. In its digital evolution, photography no longer has defenses. The digital photographer moves so quickly from decisive moment to distribution that there is no time for the reflection that earlier more arduous processes allowed for.

 

Anyone have ideas or seen examples of tools which help create space/time for reflection rather than push immediacy?

 

The Ubiquitous Picture

photo courtesy Beth Chucker

 

Cameras are everywhere.

But what happens when everything actually, is a camera?

The phone in your pocket comes with a camera built into it, the building you live in and the stoplight on the corner are rigged with them and every computer screen has one pointed back at you. We expect it and our acclimation to surveillance is complete.

A parallel thought, these tools through which we navigate the world, are putting us under a constant pressure to make the world a picture of itself. It often feels as if every extension of ones own body ends with a camera. Using a camera to investigate the world is valuable because it pauses time, allowing a moment to be reflected upon with a perspective that only photography allows. But the distancing nature of photography, whereby the subject of a photo becomes an object, an “other” to be looked at from privileged vantage, has a negative effect of allowing people to disassociate from the conditions which allowed the image to be created and feel less empathetically towards its subjects. It also creates an illusion that the act of photographing is more a function of the tool than a behavior of the individual who possesses the tool. The feeling of being removed from authorial ownership of the digital photograph, allows responsibility to be displaced yet another degree further.

 

Talking Pictures

    

    I want to talk about photography.

    Not famous photos or works of art but simply the act, which we are all, willingly or not, participating in constantly.

    My own picture making education began in an era when digital cameras were not affordable or accessible or even of interest to the average student of the medium. I remember having lengthy discussions with teachers and classmates concerning how digital cameras would change “things”,  but never could we have predicted just how much. I started this writing as a personal exercise but since it only seems to have become more relevant I am posting it here as a conversation starter for any one else thinking about this.

    I identified four distinct characteristics that most effect the way we are making pictures, today. These differences are, without a doubt, having a profound effect on the uses and meaning of photography in everyday life. Since its inception Photography has effected how we see ourselves. Ubiquitous, virtual, distributed and immediate; the tendencies of contemporary vernacular photography have made an entirely different kind picture of ourselves, because our selves have been made different by it.

I'll post my thoughts on each in the coming weeks and I encourage you to comment and share any, anecdotes, links or images that it brings to mind, so we can explore the idea further, together.

 

 

What He Said!

American creative energy has always teetered on the brink of insanity

George Saunders

No Emoticon

A Manifesto.

 It is not too late to say what you feel.

Every time you let one of those little emoticons slip into your technologically mediated communications you let a little bit of your humanity slip away. An emoticon is an inadequate and irresponsible stand in for real emotions. And more so, it is an insult to the human ability to express.

Each of us, currently has the right to speak about how we feel to each other. And we have a right to transmit that, in most cases, through a variety of text-based medium. Do not take that lightly. Your personal communications are political. There have been times and there are places today, where you must us symbols to stand in for feelings in order to avoid persecution.

The ability to express is not a given politically nor is it a given practically; we must learn it though practice and experimentation.

Consider each emoticon you choose to eliminate, as an exercise in freedom and practice of expression. Practice the written expression of your emotions with abandon! Use language. At a loss for words? Then say that, or explore a thesaurus. Make up language, if the words you find won’t do. Every colon followed by closed parentheses is a missed opportunity for an expression of human joy. Just think about all the deliciously, salty language experiences we miss out on when someone chooses to express themselves with a semi-colon, closed parentheses rather than a full description of their thoughts at that moment.

Emoticons are feelings for computers. And you, as much as, you may like to think otherwise, are not a computer. Fundamental our experience as a humans, is attempting to express feeling, failing or succeeding, and in the process, creating beauty and understanding. Trust that the thoughtful choice of words will mean, as much if not more, than the immediacy of your response, for every emoticon you eliminate from your communications is a small heroic human act.  

What She Said!

anything thats possible that makes us change is good

Genesis P-Orridge

I'll take macramé over Blu-ray, anyday!

Despite the fact that it's all about YOU,  for many of the marketers vying for your attention, Target, would like to remind us that YOU can only go so far, with that whole personality, thing.

A series of commercials with the tag-line "Time for some new traditions?" serves up a narcissistic perspective on gifting just in time for the holidays!

At first look, this commercial could be seen as celebrating the wacky creativity of making up fun festive foods, but this is not the case. Several normal-type actors proudly present their off beat edible creations to the camera. Their faces are hopeful and eager to please you. However, by the time the tagline appears at the end of the commercial it is clear that you are supposed to feel sad for these people. And sure enough, the link which popped up after watching this video within a banner ad directed me to Target's website to order entire ready-made holiday meals (link). Read: spare yourself the embarrassment.

The other commercial in this series follow suit.

In this scenario you observe two couples exchanging gifts. Couple 1 gives Couple 2 a Blu Ray player (a little extravagant, no?). In return, with the same eager goofy smiles, couple 2 presents couple 1 with a macrame covered boombox (ok, that actually is awesome!) which the lady of the couple 2 apparently made. Couple 1 exchange awkward glances at each other and try to act polite by saying "this smells like a cat". 

The didactic tone of these commercials is reminiscent of a classic 1950's social instruction film. Poor Suzy she dresses sloppy and the other kids say mean things about her, don't be a Sloppy Suzy! Similarly, these commercials serve as a warning that others might be embarrassed FOR you. Should you be tempted to give out crafty crap as gifts or invent recipes, remember your friends and family think that's weird. Make everyone more comfortable and just buy stuff from Target.

The set up of these ads is meant to remind the audience of what it feels like when you have to be gracious and accept a gift that you don't really like. The implication is that this is always negative experience. But in actuality, it feels equally as great to receive something someone made for you as it does to make something for someone else. These commercials encourage a perspective of childlike narcissism only to play it against the common social anxiety felt about pleasing other people.

On a whole Target's advertising is a cut above. Their stylish and simple Worholian celebrations of commerce are completely transparent and effective, even a pre-Black Friday series featuring the comedic talent of Maria Bamford were fun without being insulting. Target has proved that it is possible to still sell things people without putting out a negative message and I guess, that's why this set of commercials feels cheap and lazy to me.

So yes, Target, it is time for some new traditions... make whatever inventive food and gifts you want to give to your friends and family this holiday season in confidence that they will love you even more for doing so.

If you don't have time or inclination to make shit for your friends and family, this holiday season, you should at least support other people who do. Considering making a stop at a local craft fair (Bust Craftacular - Sun Dec 6th in NYC!) or visit the always open online craft fantasia website Etsy.com.

Your Personality Sucks

Vampire fantasy is inescapable. Today, confronted by an onslaught of particularly annoying advertising, I got to thinking about the real bloodsuckers and why we are so poorly equipped to resist them.

Yes, real vampires exist and they are way more annoying than the sparkly kind and far less sexy than the interviewed kind, but don't worry, they are equally as needy!

Edward: I have to tell you something. The reason why you are one dimensional, is because I stole your personality from you while you were busy updating your iPod apps in chem lab this morning. sorry.

Bella: That's OK, I never really had that much stake in it to begin with. Can we make out now?

So, while Ed and Bella do that, we can talk about the latest Yahoo! brand campaign.

This ad in particular, has me fired up

Now the internet has a personality. Yours.

Yahoo!: Single White Website (thanks to @dloher for that subtitle!)

On the one hand I applaud it's honesty. Openly stating that your brand has nothing to offer is pretty bold. And it's true. YOU are the product that many media companies now sell to each other. If they can't convince millions of us use their service, they got nothing. Currently, these businesses trade us services and tools for personal data and this works pretty well. But as a long term business plan? How long can this value proposition hold up?

As long as they can convince us that we are the center of the YOUniverse. And so, vampires they must become.

I saw Jonathan Zittrain give this Minds For Sale, talk at the Digital Labor conference last month. He goes through examples of the many ethically questionable deals businesses are making with individuals online all the time. I am interested specifically, in the exploitation of individuals personalities/identities but he essentially covers the same issues and frameworks. Well worth a watch plus Zittrain keeps it entertaining.

Also, it's not because they are vampires that you want to suck face with them, its because they are 16, you creepy pedophiles!

the little things

Great quote from David Armano of Logic+Emotion :

"We live in a world where the little things really do matter. Each encounter no matter how brief is a micro interaction which makes a deposit or withdrawal from our rational and emotional subconscious. The sum of these interactions and encounters adds up to how we feel about a particular product, brand or service. Little things. Feelings. They influence our everyday behaviors more than we realize.”

Reflections on The Craftsman pt.1

For one my Understanding Media Studies course we are reading Richard Sennet's book The Craftsman.

Really enjoying it, an easy but very thoughtful read. About halfway through the book and a wanted to jot down a few things that struck me.

Idea of Craft as Skill + Community

I found it very relevant to this discussion that Sennet calls out the emergence of a more secular workshop coinciding with growth of cities (p.56). This leads right into to the concept of the city itself as a workshop for creativity and research. Something we were asked to reflect upon as we begin graduate studies in NYC.

The urban environment inspires much of my own practice.  My working process was build from my undergraduate studies in photography where I became accustomed to using cameras to document not so much for end product but primarily as a note taking. I have come to rely on a creative process that depends on the accumulation of these notes. I have learned to trust that over time they will result in some greater work of art/ knowledge.

The act of making something as form of thinking.
For some reason there are many cues in culture which deem hand labor and thinking to be mutually exclusive. Why does this persist when anyone who has ever made anything would argue it?

He also talks about the line between craft and art - a blurry one wherever you draw it. What is the value of separating craft from art?

The transition from Apprentice to Journeyman described as a move from gaining imitative skills to understanding the overall structures for leadership. Easily applicable to contemporary work and business management.

Great quote about $ and art:

IT'S MINE! 

-Philip II to Cellini regarding Cellini's protesting the addition of a fig leaf to a commissioned statue of Jesus.

Here is a photo of my tap shoes, they are made out of some other ladies old golf shoes. They have great mojo and they really help me think.