Visual technology has changed as much over the years as society has. The photographic camera, and all devices that came before it, has evolved along with humanity to produce photography, cinema, television, digital imaging, and more. These inventions have an effect on the world, but they just one catalyst of social change. The role of these technologies is to reproduce what the naked eye sees. Reproduction could mean simply "a copy of an original work" (183) or, with a Marxist spin, it could mean the "cultural practices and their forms of expression" (183) that represent the ideologies of that society in that time period. These ideologies are made up of the prominent political and social views of that society.
I thought it was interesting how the US Department of Defense came up with ARPANET for military email in the early 70's, not knowing that eventually it would become a network used by students, professionals, gamblers, politicians, and even criminals. So many discoveries have been made by accident- think about Penicillin and America.
Basically, society effects technology and technology effects society. Photography, for example, increased in popularity at first, because of its use in law, medicine, and science, and also for personal portraits. Geoffrey Batchen brought up an interesting question regarding this. He doesn't want to know who specifically invented photography, but "'at what moment did photography shift from and occasional, isolated, individual fantasy to a demonstrably widespread social imperative?" (184). Here he reinforces the point the text made earlier: that the invention of visual technology does not, in itself, create a change in society. In fact, here photography developed (no pun intended) to meet the needs and desires of people in society in that time period (early 1800's).
I love photography and photojournalism, so it pleased me to read that "Photography is the visual technology that most helped to usher in the age of modernity to the extent that it epitomizes that era" (185). The ability to capture an image of nature, war, insects, musicians, or anything, really, changed the way humanity functioned. As it captured our society, our ideologies, our planet, etc, it captured our time period and, thus, how we would be remembered. Photography changed the way history, and life, was recored. Walter Benjamin stated that because of these changes, photography could no longer be seen as art. "Instead of being based on ritual, [art] begins to be based on another practice- politics" (199). Is art nothing but a means to present political messages? Art and photography are excellent and efficient ways to send political messages, but they are not bound to that role.
Some talking points:
1. Which is more important- photography as self-expression or photography as purely a means to capture and image seen by the eye and put it on paper? Does photography (as an art form) have less value than, say, photography that is used to document and classify? Do they overlap
2. What of the idea that something does not exist until a photograph is taken of it? How could this be argued in both ways?
3. What is the importance of a iconic piece like the Mona Lisa?
I saw the Mona Lisa at the Louvre my freshman year of high school. We walked through long hallways full of paintings that I remember finding very dull. Finally, when we came across the Mona Lisa there was a large crowd around it and tons of pictures were being taken (reproductions, I guess). I took one too, with my disposable camera, but now I don't know why. I am not a big fan of the Mona Lisa, actually. I don't like the look on her face, to be completely honest, and I don't find her all that intriguing. It was small and dark and we only got to see it for a few moments. My pictures, when I came back to the States, were less than flattering to her; crooked, no flash, and someone's head blacking her bottom left...it's not exactly a work of art. There are millions of reproductions of this image, and I had been exposed to her face many times before, and I still didn't like it...so what was the value of this valuable piece of art to me? I understand why the painting is valuable; the value of the original holds true no matter how many copies are made (191). Plus, it's the work of a genius and an icon. My problem is that the point of art is to study it and interpret it, to see the lines and ridges formed by paint, to see the canvas's skin, and to form your own opinion of it to keep with you when you walk away. This was not the case with the Mona Lisa; no one got a chance to really see it.
Other notes:
*Authenticity and the fact that the amount of prints doesn't affect the value of the original
*Ex. designer clothing- knock offs look the same and are much cheaper, but if you value fashion and designers, then you do not want imitators
*The "hand of the creator" gives value
*Parodies are not copies if they've created another original idea
*Are all photographs pieces of art?
*Film, cinema- invention of the projector- copies of theatre for mass viewing
*Copying music is different- copying a song from a friend does not take anything away from the friend, but it lessens they value of the original
*Edison- East Orange, NJ
No comments:
Post a Comment