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 :(
No comments:
Post a Comment