With the Internet, social media platforms, or, overall digital as our current mode of both gathering information (acquiring knowledge) and communicating the same, it is no wonder we are all at odds with each other w/r/t reality and truth. We no longer rely upon a linear history, see things in relation to that which came before, but, like our screen-world reality, tap in to any sourceless floating bit of information that has been manufactured for us by the consumerism of the Internet (the marketing of self and the self being marketed cannot be overlooked) which has replaced lengthy book-reading scholarship and study. Our use of digital sources for information-gathering leads us further into the so-called rabbit-hole of partisan-baited freelancers whose marketing of untenable “knowledge” gives to us our current politics. Classic literary scholarship’s been supplanted by the consumer-driven computer screen and we are living the result.
The very information we now process is no longer the result of hours of focused study in quiet library studies, but is an easily accessible montage of quickly-passing parts; bits of jotted thought or transmitted comment made virtually resource-less; free-floating pieces arrived at by an associative search removing one from our former context of a linear history. The pieces taken out of the (existing) timeline are cut and pasted into the present-day context of the immediate Search Engine without consideration for the source, order, or sequence in which this is being done.
This slicing and splicing together becomes the current context; the computer screen’s surface poses the notion of always being present, [no past pages turned] and thus, the democratization of information meets up with the mirroring universal literacy driving it. It is a perfect pairing of form and content as well as being the embodiment of “form is content”. The medium is (as has been prophesied ad infinitum) the message. The way in which we now “acquire knowledge” is, in fact, a direct reflection of the “knowledge we acquire.”
However at home we may feel at our computer screens, there is still an overbearing weight to assume in being able to digest all that is available via this medium. A book from cover to cover is digestible; an endless Google Search is not. In paradox, we assume an easier time of acquiring knowledge, but are far more pressed to admit the impossibility of ever digesting anything fully. From out of the much larger context, we extract what we want, what we need. We need not read anything in its entirety because the new form denies us the ability. And, maybe more alarmingly, our current socio-political conversation seems not to require it. Our current nonlinear collecting of linked information (source unknown, validity dubious) will give us as much of the meaning of a work as would our cursory skimming over of it.
The old trick of reading the back cover synopsis of a book in order to write a book report has become for us now – the PRIMARY way in which we operate within our knowledge-seeking world. There is far too much at our fingertips for us to do anything other. (I cannot read this book by Monday). It is no longer just one book we have to read and comprehend, but all of them. They are all there, linked together beyond any manageable comprehending boundary. We are overwhelmed before we even begin.
It is no surprise, given our propensity for convenience, that we’ve opted to indulge in the easy alternative: that of skipping and searching and looking for enough links and tangents to get to the theme we must arrive at in order to “write our paper.” We won’t pass without it. The plot we’ve tackled easily on our first Google search. The meaning, though, our truest obstacle to be met – will forever remain out of reach given the path we’ve chosen – that of the present paradigm of computer screen as perfectly fine library-aisle substitute.
How we consider a sun setting in the evening sky to be beautiful, to prompt a running-to-get-our-camera moment relies upon history and context and acculturation alongside our own neurological pathway-building influence of what we think of as beautiful “automatically” – how we have become seemingly auto-responsive to, and, yet, at the same time, have learned through our cumulative viewing experiences to love symmetry, contrasting colors, movement in space, Pythagoras’s triangles, harmonic structures and post and lintel construction. It is both ingrained and learned.
We all love sunsets for their colors, their striking visual display regardless of ever having been taught about color or striking visual displays. But we also love sunsets because we have seen so many sunsets taken out of the flow of the everyday and ordinary to become something stand-alone beautiful, something shown to us over and over as an example of something beautiful to look at, to take in, to mystically observe and urge us to consider this one section of the whole sky at this particular time of the day. Cameras are summoned to record these visual displays as our culturally-formed reflexes are reinforced. Is it merely the sharp color contrasts that move us, their fleeting duration, or is there something more meaningful in connecting the setting of the sun with the ending of a day which exists no longer, just as the colors diminish before us? Is this the connection we are making (one of the symbolic rather than the mere signifying?) with the sky’s colors and our own lives diminished by one more day?
We have learned to frame things in our minds, adjust our inner palettes to appreciate the sliver from the vastness, for the whole is far too great; the required rules of symmetry and soothing color shifts all help in the creation of the beautiful. A harsh light stressing our retinal retention capacity is not seen as beautiful; but place the very same light in the sky at a distance, give it some capacity for dispersing itself gently and we somehow find in it, beauty.
Perspective shifts of common elements aim for the beautiful; the context then, serving to administer the qualities needed to experience it. One single flower growing out of a cement block in an otherwise gray drab slab of concrete appears to us beautiful despite its contextual reality – its place out-of-place, its natural reality far more harsh and unforgiving (does it live as if well-tethered in rich soil and ample water?) than if set within a field of anonymity and likeness and same. Is it the contrast, then, the context of this which determines the experiencing of the beautiful? Is it the “framing of” that again is required for us to even notice?
This all leads to the artist and the art created for us to look at. The response to something visually beautiful is simply our natural inclination mixed with a continued repetition of having noted such things over and over in order for them to impress upon us some sort of ingrained survival mode which, if beneficial to us, if strong enough to last, will have proven itself valid and necessary simply by the virtue of its lasting; its capitulation due to such repetition -like the worn-out comfort of an armchair after decades of daily use. The artist need not be mired in the questioning of what is beautiful, for by the very virtue of the artist’s “framing of” – selecting and setting apart for us to look at – this should all be resolved for the artist in the end — if the art is working.
When Andy Warhol silkscreened Marilyn Monroe off-register onto a stretched canvas, he did two things: he called attention to the distance between the mythical and the real, (the iconic and the ordinary) and, at the same time, with the same action, he closed that very same distance. The gesture’s the thing with Warhol; his art found in the “placing upon” while engaging in the ironic erasing of.
Mythic proportion (our perception of things seeming larger-than-life) is throughout history unveiled for us as individual societies progress. Belief systems created to understand the world moved in the direction of science [of knowing] and mythic distances closed. Ancient Greece (Western Art’s primum mobile) gives us evidence in their art’s evolving anthropomorphism: gods and goddesses becoming more and more human in character (sculptural) depiction. Distance is lessened further during the 15th century Italian Renaissance: paintings applying manmade formulae to otherworldly spaces (utilizing Brunelleschi’s linear perspective) in the disavowal of spatial translations of the heavenly with the earthly. In result, we arrive at a shattering of mythical distance once again. The shifting from earthly to heavenly (specifically, for our purposes here, in Western Art before Modernism) is a constant throughout the intervening centuries.
By the time we greet Modernism in the early 20th century, American culture had, [was actively in the process of] creating its own version of gods and goddesses in the form of film stars, sports idols and other larger-than-life figures which would become for Warhol, the ideal subject matter for his art. His art’s meaning would, in turn, depend upon this reality of the mythical, the sacred, the distanced.
Warhol’s art evinces itself in the mechanical reproduction of popular culture icons, offering us the disillusion he sought (the truth he wished to reveal) as he blurred the line between the iconic and the everyday real. Warhol’s Marilyn, his Jackie O. his Elvis fall from their pedestal as he places them silkscreened-smudged and mass-produced onto canvases, and, as the ink itself runs its mechanical course simultaneously upon it. Image is blurred; literally, smudged, and made everyday by the process and, maybe, more significantly, by the quantity produced. Twenty Mona Lisas placed off-register in deliberate mass reproduction removes the mystery by engaging the process. With every image reproduced, repeated, enumerated, the place of aura, the line between the iconic and the real diminishes.
The point to note here, though, is that there [was] a line there for Warhol to blur; the distinction existed; the fall from the distant and the sacred, real. This is what accounts for the disillusionment we, [as a generation living through it] experienced. We see the metaphorical in changing our Marilyn Monroe from iconic pedestal to many-numbered reproduction, no longer able to maintain mythic distance. Postmodernism simply ensures for us the finality of the loss of the mythic, the illusion we once had the opportunity to momentarily believe in.
Today, though, is quite different.
Today, we are not given the distance needed to note any such fall. We are as close to our Beyoncés and our Lady Gagas as we can be, just in terms of sheer mediated enumeration and our immediate access to it. There is no mythological goddess in the distance for us to worship – for the form in image that these icons take, and, the one they took from the start – [one of enumeration and accessibility] makes this no longer applicable. Lady Gaga was never mythic, sacred. She was never that far away from us.
The use of the tally mark eventually morphs into numerals to signify ‘all of those many marks’. A threshold reached; the realizing of an amount unmanageable results in a change in form. Degree influences kind.
We are no longer a society of manageable quantities: _the Sears, Roebuck Catalogue, Life Magazine and The National Geographic Magazine, only three broadcasting networks on our television sets, the tangible vinyl records of the music of the ‘70’s taking up only one aisle in a Caldor Dept. store, and, a handful of books found on high school required reading lists, and these lists fairly standard: manageable, finite. We all read Animal Farm in the 8th grade; Lord of the Flies in 9th; The Great Gatsby in 10th; Our Town in 11th, and The Grapes of Wrath in 12th.
Today – there is no end to the amount of books, musicians, writers, bloggers, magazines, publications, artists, news cycles, references, television entities [and, options for viewing], videos, movies, images, data, tweets, memes, texts, opinions, information, margins, status, standards, trends, and, more importantly, those which we have access to: our access to it making all the difference.
“Google estimated in 2010 that there were 300 exabytes (that’s 300 followed by 18 zeros) of human-created information in the world, and that more information was created every two days than had existed in the entire world from the dawn of time to 2003.” 1
We are not only living in more of what we used to have, but, by this very fact, are experiencing it in a new way. This translates to a change in the way we read things; our act of reading influenced by the enumeration of the readable (sheer amount available) and the form in which the ‘enumerated readable’ takes.
For those of us who grew up in an age when the amount of media access was limited in comparison; limited in amount of options, we were more assured of a knowledge base (whether accurate or biased or mythical itself) we could manage, and, given the limited sources, far more willing to trust without the built-in skepticism needed for today’s source-sifting.
We took our time, because we had the opportunity to, and, because we were dealing with a fairly manageable amount. Most of what we knew was determined by what was within our own tangible reach. Library aisles were walked; reference book sections arrived at; their physical spaces experienced in sound, smell, sight and touch. Screens were limited to one small box in the corner of one room in our house. This was our limited-in-perspective access to (a) much larger world.
For the pre-digital world generation, the purchase of an LP record closed a sacred distance that truly existed, brought us nearer to the music artist we cherished as much as the photographs we clipped from magazines and posted on our (real) walls. These were larger-than-life images held up by scotch-tape — significant in a way not quite possible today.
Today, iPods hold our music — but not in tangible “cherishable” form, (a record album cover’s physical wear relative to its degree of “cherishedness”) but in an un-felt invisible digital code. Even the act of purchasing a record album has lost its recollected significance. It would be difficult to do this, I think, with an electronic purchase download onto a replaceable-when-it-breaks device –: we probably won’t recall our favorite iPod, our favorite Kindle.
–The tactile objects of the past will remain just that, (becoming even more of a museum treasure) while the scanning and processing of our cultural products (literature & art) turns what used to be individual hand-held objects into a field of digital code. 2
The way we seem to be viewing our present is in an overlapping of distance and myth with closeness and real; the experienced disillusionment now a perceived “something cherished”. In a way, this “Before Digital” generation views things with the advantage of a luxury of loss.
The Warhol mass-reproduced image can now be read as our Marilyn Monroe before she was silkscreened; that very gesture in demystifying as our latest version of “hand-held treasure” — as we hold onto not the myth which was lost, but rather, the memory of our personal experience of losing it.
This is not unlike Keats in his choice to reject both nightingale and urn for “being too happy in thy happiness”, far preferring –[like those of us experiencing now], (with our aim to see the 2016 Star Wars installment simply for the anticipated reunion of Fisher and Ford) a charged sentimental nostalgia as cherished experience.
At the least, with our worn-out record collections and recollected awe—– [when Lucas first gave to us ‘special effects’ (BCGI), that, at the time, were thought to be the size of galaxies ]- we have something to weigh against the present – and, with this, our experience not only varies in degree, but in kind.
1 In the Age of Information, Specializing to Survive By J. PEDER ZANE MARCH 19, 2015
2 L. Szpak – “Some Thoughts On Language and Its Evolution in the Advancing of a Digital Technology” 2010
Forget the illusions of Surrealism and Realism and History Painting and Portrait Painting and Religious Painting and the Still-life. There is nothing but the process here, the process of painting.
Like American painting of the 1940’s, Photography opens itself up to the gesture and visceral connections we (once) had with paint. No illusion suffices when the darkroom magic no longer means anything, just as the representational after WWII proved meaningless.
When the photographer’s eye loses out to digital photography’s own technological magic, when any image, all images, made, taken, shown can be easily edited, cropped, and placed into any context, when this is the new norm, Photography readjusts.
The “eye” of the photographer – the ability to capture something from nature ‘as is’ – print full-frame – is no longer viable. The prestige we once placed on the skill of the photographer’s eye has been replaced with the egalitarian ‘so can I’. Photoshop toolbars are the new darkroom and access to it all exists no matter what level or claim.
The Everyman’s camera with digital grip on capturing every moment before us – because we can — must somehow be distanced from the art photographer working diligently at his/her craft. Rather than a World War to diminish the significance of painting things from nature ……we have the ubiquity of Digital diluting the democratized pool of images we now all make with abandon.
It is no wonder that new work in Contemporary Photography is found returning to that of origin, and, with it, possibly, an aim for the retrieval of aura in the literally-pulled-from-the-negative; a move to discussing the process of Photography itself. The subject matter contemporary artists photograph now is imbued with the process of making one. And, the subject matter photographed is likewise ensured of greater meaning because it is indeed, a (true) photo. Artists photograph Photography now, leaving the task of recording sunsets and snapping in successive impulse the documenting of the everyday to the now incurable digital.
In the late 19th Century, Painting went through its own self-evaluative phase with the advent of the camera –its arrival on the scene challenging artists re-presenting likenesses on canvas. If the camera can reproduce nature as it is, (and, much more directly) we painters must give the Nature we aim to imitate with our brushes and canvas another angle, another view. Realistic portrayal is no longer the painter’s aim, but one of creating more of an impression of what we see (one which examines the Science of light and the study of refraction, saturation and hue) rather than what the artist has worked at for centuries to achieve. The camera changes everything.
Today, Photography has been taken over by the dpi pixelation of image — computer-generated and electronically processed without any gestural, personal touch or hand in the making other than the holding-at-arm’s-length distance (no longer eye pressed tightly peering through the closeness of the camera’s lens) one of the many electronic devices we carry around without distinction, and then, the tapping of a few remote keys on a keyboard while awaiting the contrast-adjusted screen resolution’s response.
With digital technology we can paint photos, make photos look like paintings, scan photos and print them as if paintings, photos, or, maybe, if we wish, both. (There is even an app that can make an image photographed look as though a painting by Thomas Hart Benton!) The origin of source is rejected for the contrivance of cut and paste and digital manipulation. The advantage of the eye in seeing something unique in the real world is overwhelmed by the savvy nature of the digital screen’s editing options offered at the touch of a distanced keystroke. Darkroom pools of chemicals and physical film emulsions dipped and swirled and submerged and pulled are all part of the mystical past printed in sepia-toned nostalgia. The capturing of the observable taken by our clunky cameras and then preserved in a photograph has been replaced by the ease and facility and access and uniformity of technology’s latest picture-taking app.
What then, can the artist who works in Photography do to maintain a level of artistic creation, freshness, scholarship, expertise, and, add to the discipline by contributing to the evolution of Photography in offering commentary on this phenomenon through one’s art, one’s own photographic work? How does the artist comment upon this digital world and its competing role? Where are the Impressionists of today and what are they doing to unite past history and our current ‘taking of pictures’?
The photographer’s image will now, always be measured against the new paradigm, the digital world’s offering — (in both quantity and kind); the photograph no longer able to carry itself just by virtue of “its being”. “Is that digitally created?” is the context all photography now faces. It no longer matters if it looks one way or another. It is now about the viewing of such a thing amidst – and, how it reads now that technology has diluted [in its own nonchemical solution] Photography’s very origin, process and meaning.