W2 PROJECT #1 (2/2): Final Result

 Here is the document I showed in class for this project!

Write Up/Intention:

    My plan is to parallel the distance between how others perceive us & how we see ourselves with the distance between an image and how we see. No matter how much technology improves, there’s always a gap between those experiences. You’ll always be ‘aware’ of the fact its an image. However, this gap is closing. When you see images taken with good cameras (or, hell, even our phones now) it can pretty well capture how we see. In other words, you’re becoming less aware it’s a photo. 

Analog and older technology has more of this distance—the camera has its own “hand” in making the final result, much as the photographer or artist taking the photo has their own style. It doesn’t try to hide the fact it’s an image. When we capture others, we have a hand or style in how we see them. Not only that, but with photography, our perceptions and memories of others are retrospective---we can only see other people in the past rather than in the moment the way they see themselves. 

When this image taken is a “Poor Image” it shows that this has been passed down and translated through many different lenses and from many different people. The final result fo a poor image almost becomes a mosaic of how it’s been treated. This idea from Steyerls work is compared with the different hand-me-down ways we see each other and ourselves. By asking someone to find an image they relate to, they have to not only relate to the subject matter, but the way it has been passed onto them—through social media, text threads, etc. It not only reflects themselves, but it reflects how they want to be seen, and by choosing others work it reflects how the photographer/original creator wanted to perceived, regardless of how it may have been altered or changed overtime. We see significant translation of these images before and after they reach the individual, which reflects both the lack of control and impact of the people we are around on our self-perception.

To achieve this, I asked a handful of friends to send me 2-3 images of how they perceive themselves. I responded with a few images of my own on how I perceive them. I printed their images, made them into a collage, then taped it to my wall. I took my source images and made a digital collage, in which I projected onto their images. Then, I found a few things some of them have given me in the past—a sculpture of my cat, a handmade frog plushie and a necklace with a windmill charm. I used these to cast shadows. From there, I took the final photos of the project.

Connection to “The Poor Image”

    “It transforms quality into accessibility, exhibition value into cult value, films into clips, contemplation into distraction.” (Steyerl 1). I gravitated toward the word ‘accessibility’ this quote in regard to this project. A work from last semesters Drawing 2010 that was in conversation with Hadi Falapishis exhibitions discussed the idea behind commodifying yourself to others, or the amount of control we have over how others perceive us. When we fear we have parts of ourselves that should be hidden, we are making ourselves into accessible commodities. Similarly, when we strive to make a ‘realistic’ image, we are trying to hide our hand or the cameras hand in that work, so it’s more approachable. It’s both adding to that distance and subtracting from it. The distance between the image and the reality as we see it is smaller, but the distance between the image and the lived experience is larger. In other words, by making the image more ‘realistic’ we make it easier to digest, and when making it easier to digest we remove the chance for our personal experience to alter the image.

    The lack of an artists/photographers hand in the image also implies a second thing: that there is no flaw or experience that clouds that artists views. Demonstrating a style or adding distance between a “realistic” image and the current one can be perceived as a flaw. If realism is the goal, deviations from that is seen as failure. So, when we produce an image that is identical to how it looks, it can be interpreted that the individual taking it has nothing wrong with them that can taint the experience of the image, therefore promoting insecurity. 

Processes:

Part 1 (The “how they perceive themselves collage”)

1. The participants determined their source images were

2. Source images were downloaded/obtained

            a. These were from various places such as Pinterest, google, or were taken by themselves. It is                         likely that multiple processes already changed the ‘original’ image, but for the purpose of this                     project, this is where the ‘source image’ begins.

3. Source images were sent to me

             a. Through social media, text, etc

4. Source images were saved on my device

5. Source images were then copied into a word document for printing

6. Then the document was emailed to me to print

7. The document was downloaded on the computer connected to the printer

8. The document was printed in B&W

9. Images were then sorted and cut out

10. Finally, they were layered and glued together

Part 2 (Digital collage/projection)

1. Source images were gathered

            a. Includes sources such as Pinterest, my camera roll, previous text threads, social media posts,                    etc. 

2. Source images were saved to my device

3. Source images were pasted into Photoshop and organized

4. Source images were altered

            a. Changes in hue, saturation, perspective warping, cropping, colour, etc

5. Source images were cut, erased, and organized in the collage

6. Finished file was saved to my device

7. Finished file was then projected onto the wall with the first part of the project

Part 3 (Presentation/photos of the photos)

1. Part 1 collage was taped to the wall

2. Part 2 collage was then put on the projector

3. Projector was manually set in and out of focus

4. Photos were taken (w/iPhone) 

5. Photos were edited accordingly

a. Adjusting the crop, the perspective, the tone, the sharpness etc

6. Photos were sent to my laptop

7. Photos were saved in my laptop

8. Then pasted here!

W2 DISCUSSION: Everywhere At The End of Time

 I was trying to remember what this assignment reminded me of and it just hit me!! The "dementia album"!

"Everywhere At The End of Time" is a 6hr long audio project meant to depict someones mind as their dementia progresses. The first section is a handful of the original songs almost untouched, and over the course of the 6 hours they loop and become distorted. Highly recommend checking it out! 

Album Link: 

Everywhere At The End of Time

W1 DISCUSSION: The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction

 

“The Work of Art in an Age of Mechanical Reproduction?” I haven’t heard that name in years…

I read Walter Benjamins essay quite a while ago—I think around grade 9ish when I was researching into a fun topic question for a project. It was for ‘creative design’ which was a “choose whatever question you want to research and then present on it” to teach us to manage our time. This was a bit wasted on 9th graders in my opinion, we were hardly thinking about time management fresh out of COVID and trying to learn how to speak to people again. My topic was along the lines of “How/Why do we value art the way we do?” which lead me down a mostly productive rabbit hole. I found the essay through an essay that was written in response—“The Work of Art in the Age of Digital Reproduction” by Douglas Davis.

Here’s a slightly illegal link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1576221 

And here’s a reading of the work on Youtube if you want to listen instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_U9-Da9NFQ 

In the essay, Davis takes quite an optimistic take on digital reproduction. It discusses how there’s no clear distance between the reproduction of the work and the original—and the “aura” that used to be so prized, is now shared in a unique way. The artist and viewer are inherently viewing it through the same lenses. It adds onto the idea of making art more accessible, and therefore less of a privilege.

Something that’s often brought to the table in a historical view of art is that art is a sign of excess. It means that individuals who have all their needs met—food, water, shelter, etc, have spare time to make art, since it’s non-essential to survival (despite what the poets may say). So, when we see art in the past, that means that there was a stable enough society to have this spare time and resources to make art. And a lack of art can indicate the opposite, but that take away is a bit more complicated.

I agree with the author on the shrinking distance between the original and the reproduction, however I don’t believe that the “aura” is reproduced in full the same way. The thesis was written in 1995, so his perception might have changed based off our technology today. A common pushback against AI is that we don’t see the “struggle” for the technique because making the work is as easy as putting in a word prompt. We see a lot of this anti-intellectualism in literature circles as well, people who simplify the text they are reading into ‘easier’ words removes the style and impact of the book itself. Therefore, it’s less rewarding when you read and understand a challenging book. In this scenario, the “struggle” is what makes the art valuable. (Just as an aside--I don't fully agree with 'harder the art was to make the more it is worth' but if I get into it now we will be here for ages) If people without arms learn to paint with their feet, why can’t AI and NFT bros learn to pick up a pen? And, is this reduction in “struggle” a sign that our society is no longer stable enough to make art?

I won’t open the can of worms that is my interest in social media algorithm sociology or whatever that non-existent field of study is, but I’ll touch on what I spoke about in my 9th grade PowerPoint. Essentially, if we collectively the value of art being the path of most resistance, we make it a behaviour only afforded to the privileged, since they’re the only ones with the free time and resources to participate in it. But making it accessible or easier removes the supposed value and “aura”. As an opposition to the literature argument, we have the theatre recording argument. Theatre, especially Broadway, is expensive to go see. Because of this, recordings are the best to reach larger audiences. When we are losing that aura, because lets admit it—there’s nothing more powerful than sitting in the seats of a live theatre production—but we are gaining accessibility. 

    So art exists in this weird middle space between accessibility and challenge. If it isn’t accessible, there’s no art (or its limited to the extremely privileged). If it’s too ‘easy’ to create, there’s no value.

    I’m about to miss my bus to printmaking. I hope you don’t mind me rambling without proofreading, if you’ve made it this far. The essay is good! I highly recommend it! 

W1 PROJECT #1 (1/2): Concept Stage

 

Project “Theory” Overview

I’m beginning this with my planned overview of my project so I can reference it throughout the annotations, as I had a general idea of how I wanted to approach this project before I fully read through The Poor Image. 

My current plan is to parallel the distance between how others perceive us & how we see ourselves with the distance between an image and how we see. No matter how much technology improves, there’s always a gap between those experiences. You’ll always be ‘aware’ of the fact its an image. However, this gap is closing. When you see images taken with good cameras (or, hell, even our phones now) it can pretty well capture how we see. In other words, you’re becoming less aware it’s a photo. 

Analog and older technology has more of this distance—the camera has its own “hand” in making the final result, much as the photographer or artist taking the photo has their own style. It doesn’t try to hide the fact it’s an image.

As I stated above, I’m comparing this gap to the gap between how we see ourselves vs how others see us. When we capture others, we have a hand or style in how we see them. Not only that, but with photography, our perceptions and memories of others are retrospective---we can only see other people in the past rather than in the moment the way they see themselves. 

Hito Steyerl’s “The Poor Image” Annotations

“It transforms quality into accessibility, exhibition value into cult value, films into clips, contemplation into distraction.” (Steyerl 1). I gravitated toward the word ‘accessibility’ this quote in regard to this project. A work from last semesters Drawing 2010 that was in conversation with Hadi Falapishis exhibitions discussed the idea behind commodifying yourself to others, or the amount of control we have over how others perceive us. When we fear we have parts of ourselves that should be hidden, we are making ourselves into accessible commodities. Similarly, when we strive to make a ‘realistic’ image, we are trying to hide our hand or the cameras hand in that work, so it’s more approachable. It’s both adding to that distance and subtracting from it. The distance between the image and the reality as we see it is smaller, but the distance between the image and the lived experience is larger. In other words, by making the image more ‘realistic’ we make it easier to digest, and when making it easier to digest we remove the chance for our personal experience to alter the image.

    “Obviously, a high-resolution image looks more brilliant and impressive, more mimetic and magic, more scary and seductive than a poor one,” (Steyerl 3). I’m pushing back on this a little bit. As I said above, images that are more realistic are more approachable in the sense that they’re easier to digest, however there is a bit of privilege associated with these images. To get a realistic image, you need a decent or good camera, meaning that you must spend a decent amount of money. Not only that, but when you take a photo and share it, it not only implies that photo is worth taking, but it is worth it for others to see. The lack of an artists/photographers hand in the image also implies a second thing: that there is no flaw or experience that clouds that artists views. Demonstrating a style or adding distance between a “realistic” image and the current one can be perceived as a flaw. If realism is the goal, deviations from that is seen as failure. So, when we produce an image that is identical to how it looks, it can be interpreted that the individual taking it has nothing wrong with them that can taint the experience of the image, therefore promoting insecurity. This is partially contradictory to the earlier point, so let me explain with another annotation.

 

“The poor image reveals the decline and degradation of the film essay, or indeed any experimental and non-commercial cinema.” (Steyerl 6) An image equivalent to reality is both alienating and universal. If I took a picture of a landscape, for example, and it looks identical to how it did the way everyone else in that landscape is experiencing it, there is little to no impact of my unique lived experience. Which is where I disagree is Steyerl. However, its alienating to see a lack of impact on an experience. If I took it without any issue or flaw (impossible, though), it inspires insecurity since others are going to see flaws or a ‘style’ in their own works. The definition of ‘style’ is complicated, but for our sake lets just pretend it means that it’s the flaws an artist introduces (intentionally or unintentionally) into a replication of reality. This ‘style’ can be relatable to others, since they can relate their own flaws/style to the work, but alienating because it runs a risk others may not like it. Both of these exist all at once. In other words, adding style alienates some, but can become accessible to those who relate to the flaws the style adds. 

And somehow, my document is already almost 900 words long. I’m going to leave this here for now, and come back with *actual* progress on the project (I swear I’m working on it!!) at a later time. Apologies for any grammatical errors as well. I got a lot to do today, unfortunately :(