Reproduction and Visual Technologies…where in the world to begin. I have lots to say about this topic, so I apologize in advance if the blog seems disjointed or rambling.
First, I would like to thank Sturken and Cartwright for giving me a profound new understanding or appreciation for Modernist art styles like Impressionism and Cubism. Previously, I dismissed them as strange paintings done by somebody either half-drunk or severely disoriented. Well, that’s a bit extreme. I thought that the paintings did have value, but I just couldn’t see it. Now I do. While they may not look like the more “realistic” perspective pieces that accurately depict an image, they depict the act of looking. As Practices of Looking says, Monet used light and water in his Impressionist style to show the complexity of vision, which I think is a much harder task than simply trying to paint something the way it looks. In my mind, I see one representative of the end result, while the other focuses more on the process. Perspective pieces focus on what we say, but the modern abstract pieces focus on how we see.
It’s interesting that many people consider the perspective pieces more valid or true to the real world, despite the fact that this couldn’t be farther from the truth. These pieces completely lack and recognition of just how complex the looking process is, and disregard how our vision works.
More recently, people have come to recognize or assume that photographs are more realistic or truthful representations of the world than any painting or drawing would be. For some reason, they are more confident in digital photography because they are more confident in computers. They probably feel that the computer remove a certain element of human fallibility. What they forget is that there is a human behind the camera or computer operating it, many times with more control and opportunity to manipulate the image. I have a very limited artistic ability, placing several constraints on anything I might try to draw or paint. But with a camera and computer at my disposal, I can make anything look exactly the way I want it. People have created images like sharks jumping out of the water at helicopters,
and they have some validity because they appear to be photographs. It is much easier for us to dismiss paintings as representing fiction, even if they may happen to represent real events. Technology may make us able to make images that look more valid, and it may seem like it allows us to more accurately depict reality, but really, it has opened the doors and increased our ability to manipulate images, only making fiction look more real.
Technology has also led to the reproduction of images, and Sturken and Cartwright talk about the implications this has for images as political tools. After reading this chapter, I came across an interest article in The Economist titled “Rebranding Canada…Tenacious, smelly- and uncool.” After double-checking to make sure I was still reading The Economist, and not The Onion, I read on. The article was about Stephen Harper, the country’s prime minister, trying to decide which animal best captured the national image. Apparently, after much deliberation, Harper decided that “…the national image was best captured by the wolverine, a sort of weasel.” In making his decision, he said that he wanted an animal that accurately depicted all that is Canadian. The wolverine shows that “Canada is no mouse beside the American elephant, but a wolverine next to a grizzly bear. We may be smaller but we’re no less fierce about protecting our territory…”
The article went on to describe Harper’s political agenda, and then discussed other animals that serve as images for different countries, like the American bald eagle or the Russian bear. It was interesting to read the way Harper was encoding the image of the animal with the traits that he believes to be Canadian. Personally, when I think Canada, I think moose or hockey, but maybe that’s just me. (Note to self: pitch Moose holding hockey stick to prime minister Harper as Canada’s new national animal).
I had never really thought about the process of selecting an animal to convey the image of a nation, and it is amazing to think that Canada is now going to reproduce this image of the wolverine to sell the public on just what it means to be Canadian.
So aside from enabling nations like Canada to try to cast their image through an animal, what else has technology enabled us to do? Well, as Practices of Looking says, “the question of artistic ownership becomes increasingly complex in digital media, which make accessible to the average consumer many of the processes of reproduction.” Essentially, technology has made it so we have all become producers. In the past, there was one painter and many viewers, or one producer and many consumers. Now we are all both. Sure, there remain a select few that get paid the big bucks for what they do, i.e. Lucas and Spielberg, but with the advent of the digital camcorder and simple computer editing software, we can all do it. Visual technology has made it so anybody that wants to can produce, for better or worse. This has created an environment where creativity can flourish.
Some may argue that this technology has mainly resulted in reproduction, and hence, creativity dying off as people are just copying other people or appropriating somebody else’s ideas. That is not necessarily true, as many times the reproductions are far more creative than anything entirely “original” would be. Take “mashups” for instance.
I am not a big fan of rap music, but there is this certain song that combines Jimi Hendrix’ Voodoo Child with Jay-Z that is simply amazing…far better than any supposedly “original” entirely redundant rap song with the same kind of beat about the same kind of things would be. New technology is stimulating creativity, not hampering it. It is just manifesting itself in new ways, like compilations and altered reproductions. http://http://www.timgmusic.co.uk/ (There's a link to the site where you can check out a bunch of different mashups in the "Streaming Bootleg" section. Enjoy.)
First, I would like to thank Sturken and Cartwright for giving me a profound new understanding or appreciation for Modernist art styles like Impressionism and Cubism. Previously, I dismissed them as strange paintings done by somebody either half-drunk or severely disoriented. Well, that’s a bit extreme. I thought that the paintings did have value, but I just couldn’t see it. Now I do. While they may not look like the more “realistic” perspective pieces that accurately depict an image, they depict the act of looking. As Practices of Looking says, Monet used light and water in his Impressionist style to show the complexity of vision, which I think is a much harder task than simply trying to paint something the way it looks. In my mind, I see one representative of the end result, while the other focuses more on the process. Perspective pieces focus on what we say, but the modern abstract pieces focus on how we see.
It’s interesting that many people consider the perspective pieces more valid or true to the real world, despite the fact that this couldn’t be farther from the truth. These pieces completely lack and recognition of just how complex the looking process is, and disregard how our vision works.
More recently, people have come to recognize or assume that photographs are more realistic or truthful representations of the world than any painting or drawing would be. For some reason, they are more confident in digital photography because they are more confident in computers. They probably feel that the computer remove a certain element of human fallibility. What they forget is that there is a human behind the camera or computer operating it, many times with more control and opportunity to manipulate the image. I have a very limited artistic ability, placing several constraints on anything I might try to draw or paint. But with a camera and computer at my disposal, I can make anything look exactly the way I want it. People have created images like sharks jumping out of the water at helicopters,
and they have some validity because they appear to be photographs. It is much easier for us to dismiss paintings as representing fiction, even if they may happen to represent real events. Technology may make us able to make images that look more valid, and it may seem like it allows us to more accurately depict reality, but really, it has opened the doors and increased our ability to manipulate images, only making fiction look more real.Technology has also led to the reproduction of images, and Sturken and Cartwright talk about the implications this has for images as political tools. After reading this chapter, I came across an interest article in The Economist titled “Rebranding Canada…Tenacious, smelly- and uncool.” After double-checking to make sure I was still reading The Economist, and not The Onion, I read on. The article was about Stephen Harper, the country’s prime minister, trying to decide which animal best captured the national image. Apparently, after much deliberation, Harper decided that “…the national image was best captured by the wolverine, a sort of weasel.” In making his decision, he said that he wanted an animal that accurately depicted all that is Canadian. The wolverine shows that “Canada is no mouse beside the American elephant, but a wolverine next to a grizzly bear. We may be smaller but we’re no less fierce about protecting our territory…”
The article went on to describe Harper’s political agenda, and then discussed other animals that serve as images for different countries, like the American bald eagle or the Russian bear. It was interesting to read the way Harper was encoding the image of the animal with the traits that he believes to be Canadian. Personally, when I think Canada, I think moose or hockey, but maybe that’s just me. (Note to self: pitch Moose holding hockey stick to prime minister Harper as Canada’s new national animal).
I had never really thought about the process of selecting an animal to convey the image of a nation, and it is amazing to think that Canada is now going to reproduce this image of the wolverine to sell the public on just what it means to be Canadian.So aside from enabling nations like Canada to try to cast their image through an animal, what else has technology enabled us to do? Well, as Practices of Looking says, “the question of artistic ownership becomes increasingly complex in digital media, which make accessible to the average consumer many of the processes of reproduction.” Essentially, technology has made it so we have all become producers. In the past, there was one painter and many viewers, or one producer and many consumers. Now we are all both. Sure, there remain a select few that get paid the big bucks for what they do, i.e. Lucas and Spielberg, but with the advent of the digital camcorder and simple computer editing software, we can all do it. Visual technology has made it so anybody that wants to can produce, for better or worse. This has created an environment where creativity can flourish.
Some may argue that this technology has mainly resulted in reproduction, and hence, creativity dying off as people are just copying other people or appropriating somebody else’s ideas. That is not necessarily true, as many times the reproductions are far more creative than anything entirely “original” would be. Take “mashups” for instance.
I am not a big fan of rap music, but there is this certain song that combines Jimi Hendrix’ Voodoo Child with Jay-Z that is simply amazing…far better than any supposedly “original” entirely redundant rap song with the same kind of beat about the same kind of things would be. New technology is stimulating creativity, not hampering it. It is just manifesting itself in new ways, like compilations and altered reproductions. http://http://www.timgmusic.co.uk/ (There's a link to the site where you can check out a bunch of different mashups in the "Streaming Bootleg" section. Enjoy.) 
No comments:
Post a Comment