Untitled

The Bourriaud and Gergel readings assigned this week really made me think about ownership and copyright within art and other industries. It became apparent to me that the way that industries view what is considered copyright varies significantly. For example, the Gergel reading discusses Richard Prince, who controversially took screenshots of public account’s Instagram posts and printed them out for profit without their consent or significant alteration to the images. This has been seen as controversial. Yet, in the music industry artists commonly “sample” music from other songs. This is most commonly done in the rap industry. In fact, some sub genres of music within EDM are entirely dedicated to only using prior created music. 

But if we were to compare this to writing this would be an entirely different story. I am writing this post after several other people in my class have already submitted their responses to Tumblr. If I were to copy and paste the response of my classmate, but I changed the font color and added a funny catch phrase at the bottom I would likely be given a stern warning. If I did it again, I might even be sent to the Office of Community Standards and if I continued to do so I could be suspended from the school. But in artistry, there seems to be a gray area for this. From my observations, it appears that the industry tends to favor the “copier” rather than the “original creator.” While some theorists like Bourriaud argue that, “The material they manipulate is no longer primary,” artists like Richard Prince are still able to profit and gain notoriety off of their work (Bourriaud, 7). There are few repercussions within the industry to regulate this. 

Thinking about this more I realized the issue in the art industry. Rap music is able to get away with sampling music because it is done openly and rappers rarely claim a sample as their own. In my example of writing a response above, I could be exempt from any honor code violation if I were to cite my source properly. So long as I do not claim the work to be mine and I correctly name the original creator, then society seems to almost always deem this as okay. I think that this is where art needs to draw the line. Consent and citations are critical for the “reproduction” of art to be ethical. Gergel underscores the former aspect and points out that, “while copyright law concerns the rights of the owner, what about the rights of the subject?” Art has not only offered little protections for creators but also has failed in many ways to protect the rights of the subjects of materials. Issues of this can also be found in Richard Prince’s Instagram artworks.

How to Stay Afloat in Your Infinite Stream of Photos and Memories Unseen focuses on the relationship of photography and memory. In, How to Stay Afloat in Your Infinite Stream of Photos, Kainaz Amaira aims to start conversation about how technology is taking away/affecting our memories especially due to the fact that we are less likely to look back at these photos. The onset of the mobile cell phone has allowed us the ability to have a camera with us at all times. Different social pressures, specifically from social media, have driven people to take photos “mindlessly.” Amaira argues that this increase in image content, all stored away on “the cloud,” makes it difficult for people to scroll through all of the pictures they have taken. By not looking back on these photos it is difficult for our mind to solidify our memory of them better. She suggests printing out pictures and having more intention on what we want to photograph rather than taking them “aimlessly.”

I am guilty of taking “1,000s of images each month on my iphone.” So much so that I actually have run out of storage on my phone multiple times. But despite the many blurry images that were taken haphazardly in random places, the idea of taking a bunch of random photos and finding a gem within one of them is part of the fun for me. Many of my favorite photos were taken on the live or burst photo option on my iphone. And sure, there might be 999 images that I don’t like and may not look at again but finding that one image that does contain that is more than worth it. While I may not remember every single memory from every photo I have taken perfectly or in some cases at all, by taking a bunch of “mindless pictures,” I still have documented a period in my life. As Cole describes it in Memories Unseen, ““Photography is inescapably a memorial art. It selects out of the flow of time, a moment to be preserved” (Cole,4). While I admire Amaira’s dedication to taking photos with an explicit purpose and being thoughtful about which ones to share, I think putting any restraint around photography (at least for my personality) takes some of the fun out of it!

Moreover, I think it can sometimes be a good thing that I may not have the best memory of all of the pictures I take. There are definitely some moments that not everyone wants to remember, maybe a day that had a sad event occur or the anniversary of a loved one’s death. Cole also points out how collection of images can have different intentions for example, “The government retains our images in order to fight terrorism.” By taking so many pictures, it provides a barrier to be able to access pictures. I can still access them if I want to or when I am ready, but maybe this is a memory that for now I want to forget.

This week’s reading examines the use of photography as an instrument of control and surveillance. The chapter discusses how photographs have been used throughout history to monitor and survey the behavior of individuals, and how this practice has continued to the present day. One example on page 8 of the reading describes a 2008 poster issued by the London Metropolitan Police that informed the public that they believed terrorists use surveillance to plan attacks; therefore, the citizens needed to be wary of anyone operating as a photographer and report any “suspicious” activity. 

“Anxieties about terrorist threats might have also given rise to a belief that one might be able to visually identify the terrorist ‘type’ — despite ample evidence to the contrary; it is easy to see how ‘vigilance’ in this respect can slip into racist stereotyping.” Here, Salkeld brings up the ethical issues with photography and their uses of surveillance for people of color. Not only has photography been used to oppress and incriminate BIPOC communities for decades, but in this instance the police are now also asking for people to be wary of people who may be taking pictures and documenting things. 

From my perspective, photography has historically been used as just another way to further group/divide people racially. Salkeld describes this concept best, where “Photographing people can be an exercise in knowledge and power: to ‘fix' them, to classify, label and object them.” One could argue that the idea of using a camera as a means of documentation and surveillance in America is only permissible when it is used to benefit white people. This reminds of recent legislation that was passed in Arizona that prohibits anyone from video recording police activity within 8 feet of them. This is believed to have been passed largely in response to the increase in documentation through videotaping and photography of police officers during the Black Lives Matter movement. This ruling is in spite of the fact that BIPOC communities are not given these protections as they are subject to being videoed and recorded at any time ranging from police body cams to simply walking down the street.

All three of the assigned readings this week discuss the topics concerning surveillance and privacy related to the advancement of technology. However, Hurst’s article, ‘The Google Glass Feature No One is Talking About,’ stands out to me in particular. From the beginning of the reading, it is clear that Hurst has an overwhelming concern for the potential uses of one of Google's latest technological inventions, Google Glasses. He points out how Google Glasses have a feature known as “lifebits” which allows users to stealthily record everything around them without anyone knowing. Hurst predicts a dystopian future for google glasses, one where, “Anywhere you go in public - any store, any sidewalk, any bus or subway - you're liable to be recorded: audio and video. Fifty people on the bus might be Glassless, but if a single person wearing Glass gets on, you - and all 49 other passengers - could be recorded.”

Hurst brings up a good point. This new wearable technology will inevitably have privacy concerns and it is something that we must be aware of and consider when developing/regulating technology. But Hurst also takes a jab at the cultural impact of these glasses, claiming that, “Your one-on-one conversation with someone wearing Google Glass is likely to be annoying, because you'll suspect that you don't have their undivided attention. And you can't comfortably ask them to take the glasses off (especially when, inevitably, the device is integrated into prescription lenses).” While certainly there may be some adjusting to society wearing these glasses, I think that Hurst underestimates society’s ability to adapt and accept new forms of technology. When Apple first came out with their watch, it received lots of public criticism for being an “eyesore” and how concerning it was that we couldn’t be without our phones for even a few minutes that we needed to have technology on us at all times. There were concerns over how this would distract children in classes and how Apple would be gathering information on us constantly. While all of these critiques of Apple were important to bring up in conversation and to some extent were true, society has pretty much entirely accepted and adapted to the Apple Watch. 

I felt that Sontag’s first essay, “In Plato’s Cave,” was blemished by the problematic ethnic stereotype statements and strong takes that lacked the necessary nuance to make a convincing argument. One statement that was particularly alarming to me was her explanation of the increase of use in tourist’ photography. On page 10, Sontag points out the photography habits of a select few cultural groups, “Germans, Japanese and Americans” who she believes are. “handicapped by a ruthless work ethic,” and “have to pretend that they have something to do that is like a friendly imitation of work: they can take pictures.” As a multi-racial woman, who identifies with both my Japanese German ethnicity and American culture, I found this particularly offensive. Especially given the “model minority” stereotype of Asian Americans who have continued to suffer from this white perception that all Asians are the same and love to work is incredibly harmful to our community. 

Sontag’s view is elitist and racist in nature. Not only does the addition of this quote not add anything substantive to her essay but it essentially states that these communities are actually unable to take pictures and enjoy the art form. This is especially concerning given the fact that Sontag is a white woman, who is not a person of color. Therefore, she lacks the perspective and experience to be able to speak for this community. I also took issue with her statements surrounding the use of photography as capturing moments of history. On page 11, she states that “photography is essentially an act of non-intervention” and criticizes photographers of war and other horrors. She criticizes photographers who choose to take photos during events of disaster instead of helping save someone’s life. This comment really undermines the power and importance of journalism in photography and further unveils her overwhelming privilege. Sontag’s elitist views are embedded in this essay and overwhelm any meaningful messages that could have potentially been taken away from this piece.

 I also felt an air of that same elitism when watching, “The Allegory of the Cave.” I think the story is very interesting and fun to follow but the metaphor itself essentially seems to say that people who are “enlightened” or know the truth about things should be expected to not be believed. I think that this inherently puts people into two different categories. I can;t help but think of the book, “The Racial Contract,” which discusses the divide amongst white and “non-whites” and how white people have throughout history seen themselves as human and everyone else as “subhuman.” This of course has had long lasting effects on gatekeeping bi-poc communities from education, arts and other great things that took place during the enlightenment era. I cannot help but think of this idea of the enlightened vs. the not enlightened as really just a separation of those who were educated (wealthy, white men) and those who were not (bi-poc, women, poorer classes).