User:Janis Klimanovs/Rough Cut

point of view

things that I have been reading, now trying to put in one piece: remix

While practicing things that I am learning during the second term in prototyping, different tutorials and writing classes, I did come up with issues that are important for me to find out during this period of investigations. When I start a new project I am digging down somewhere in my thoughts, trying to establish a vision, concretize my ideas and understand where the images and practical solutions are coming from. I start to experiment with things and analyze the results.

Most things that are attracting our tension and interest are surrounding us in everyday life, things that we see, experience, enjoy the feeling of, like the atmosphere, find visually/aesthetically attractive, value the ideology or performance, etc., we want to keep them closer in our memories. These things are building our world map, understandings of life, opinion and we keep them in one place: the brain, functioning as an database/archive. When I am making an research on something I collect lots of information, than it becomes quite hard to focus on something concrete and make decisions, concretize an vision/idea because of the fulfilled space of information which is surrounding us from many sides. I feel the tension also of unnecessary information/data that is corrupting me and stealing my time every day.[Steve: are there things from the archive thematic that can feed into this?] Most of the things that we find attractive by browsing the world wide web, for example in google search, social network timelines or blogs, news or absorbing information/data that comes across us every day, it's constructing our point of view, opinions, expectations, thoughts, memories, etc.

Absorbing information we spend a lot of time on the activities. I constantly catch myself browsing things that I forget about in next hours. We are surrounded by an overwhelmed information space which is constructed from images that are documenting facts, illustrating things, providing information, creating opinions, influencing, exploring ideas, performing, affecting, abusing, etc. I can not name all the categories that are there but the idea is that these categories of images have developed since the initial start of photography when it served as an documental material claiming on truth.

In the text about objectivity author describes physicists Arthur's Worthington's work. He spent a lot of time analyzing the impact of falling liquid drops which hit a flat surface. He made drawings, after photographs and systematically classified these visualizations. Photographs comparing to drawings showed more detail and the irregularity, asymmetrical individuality of drops, while perceiving with eye and drawing them, they seemed regular. Discovering the detailed complexity and the differences between photographed drops and drawings, he realized that photographed may be considered as real, being objective. "Objectivity is blind sight, seeing without inference, interpretation, or intelligence." About blind sight, the "objective view" scientists started to become curious after Worthington's long experiments and emerged a new way how to study nature and work as scientists. Image making was one of the most common new practice ways for to achieve scientifically objective material. I am wondering if now the situation with the visual material is not the same as 150 years ago when objectivity was discovered? Nowadays in the age of digital reproduction everything what is photographed is as close as drawings at the period of Worthington's discoveries, the medium has no borders.

As Frank Kessel is arguing, the physicality of represented material in an digital image can no longer be seen as truth. The possibilities of manipulations are unlimited which puts an ending point for documentary photography and film as an ontological claim on the real. The spectator can get confused and the communication outcome can make an irreversible switch into another state. Image performance can vary depending on the knowledge and understanding of spectator. The solution to avoid it would be proper updated literacy that would enable spectator to think more critically about what is seen and claims to be true.

Do we really care about it while living in the age of digital reproduction and being surrounded by all the information that we are actually not aware of?

Example from Esposito E., The reality of the world and realism of fiction, she is arguing if "Is non-manipulated representation possible when the medium inevitably effects the reality it represents? And when representation has got distortions and when it is manipulated? Mirror is the ultimate picture, by looking in a mirror view it is not possible to adjust colors or soften skin, reshape or add tan to the image in the mirror.

Anyway, in my practice I find references of things that are influencing my perception and way of thinking. For me it is important to understand where the images and ideas are coming from? And how do I filter them, what are actually my criteria to save things in my memory/archive/database, and wether consciously or unconsciously, how they appear in my work, are the influences recognizable? What is my added value for my experiments and reproductions?

When I start to work on my project and later discuss the created images, I am looking for my added value because that is what makes my work. Its not about authenticity but how the reproduced idea performs, and what is the added value. In the digital age often the new version of a reproduced work is actually the work it self. So it means that my influences and conscious/unbconscious decisions actually are creating my work.

By manipulating appropriate material I am personalizing it and adapting idea as if it would be mine, but it is not the same, I am not making a copy, it is different, because my added value is there. The artist works as a mix master and the value of the work is more the ideological/technical part of layering thing together and creating a new meaning/performance piece.

About remixing stuff and creating something new out of several ready things: Kuleshov argues that, in principle, “every art form has two technological elements: material itself and the methods of organizing that material.”

How do my images preform? What am I trying to construct and say? I have to avoid and push away myself from cliche images and try to deform and rebuild the core of a narrative. Are there any strands? [Steve:the best way to get to the bottom of tis is to describe the work.] The idea of manipulation is rewriting the reality by asking the contemporary questions which are time and space based. The work function as a 'conceptual metaphor' which structures our experience of ourselves and the world.

Photographer argues, that "The real power of photography emerges when altered reality is presented as existent and is expected to be perceived as such. An obviously manipulated image is a trick that shows a lack of understanding of the unique power of photography - the belief engraved in our subconscious that what was captured by the camera has to exist. In the best examples of successfully manipulated images the question "Is it real?" does not arise."

"No copy of a photo or video is more original than the others." De Mul argues that on a fundamental level all media art works share some basic characteristics and actually could be categorized by them even in details. Computer could make this kind of database by looking for similarities, for example, google has generated the button "similar" if You are searching for images and want to look for similar ones. The only problem is that it can't be done by a machine, machine does not understand the images, it simply applies color tones and pixel statistics. For example when an artist is creating an artwork that involves references and one may recognize influence or style and in the outcome by mixing and reconstructing things, the meaning can be changed, visually the same art piece would not be in the same category because it could have a different performance.

Bibliography and research material:

L. Datson & P. Galison. Objectivity. 9-39.

De Mul, J. (2009). The work of art in the age of digital recombination. Digital Material. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 95-106.

Kessler, F. (2009). What you get is what you see: Digital images and the claim on the real. Digital Material. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. 187-197.

Cannell, C. (2005) Reality vs. Actuality: A Construction of the Truth

http://oliverlaric.com/versions.htm

http://www.everythingisaremix.info/