Images - Are they really standing still?

I was struck with the discussion we have after Brett's presentation about how images cannot show motion, as though they are stuck in time more or less. Conversely, I charged how because of the texture and variations that occur with a painting it has a much better chance of cpaturing motion. And it makes perfect sense. However, is there another way to look at how images do in fact capture motion?

My paper is focused a lot on performance and visuality and there is one article I have read by Chesboro (citation to follow, I forgot it in my bag today) and how he charges images can in fact be put into motion. In the confines of my paper, I use it to illustrate more so on how it can put ideas, or ideology into motion.

If I were to use an example from this class, it would be the weeks we spent on publics. More specifically, on iconic photos and publics. What I mean when I use Chesboro's terms of motion is that it makes certain ideas come to life. If we look at something similar to The Flag Raising on Iwo Jima, we talk about these concepts of civic identity being conjured up within the people that view the image. It brings something to life within us, and hopefully, into practice in our real life. So, in this repsect, I guess we can possibly look at how while technically speaking a photo only captures what is still, it can put something into motion. Think call to action, maybe?

I believe if we look at how iconic imagery can conjure up identity, that in itself is showing some sort of motion, a call into being, a reason to take something away from our view of the image and put it somewhere productive, whether that be in physical action or thoughtful reflection. But at the very least, and like all images in general, they are not just blank stares combined with our own blank stares back. There is always something inherently moving when it comes to images, either within the ideas they are bringing to life through means of representation, or through us, the viewer when we think and talk about them. In addition, they feed off one another. How is that not motion?

So, can the image be in motion? Or is it my perspective that puts it in motion? Or, when viewed technically, we can never argue it is in motion? It's very point is to capture. Do we have to appreciate in the defferent spheres for both arguements to have their validity?

Moral Emotion

I spoke about how there is a concept of moral emotion floating around. My paper focuses partly on this concept, which provides an illustration why art, or in this case images, affect us the way we do.

While much of this semester has focused so much on the technical aspect of why images tell the story they do, I feel when we look at images, even when we try to keep it in the technical aspect, it more than likely has a sort of undertone that makes us talk about how we feel about the image and its ramifications.

That is because like so many of our discussions demonstrate, images are our lives. Symbols and images were what we used to communicate in the old days, they continue to be so. They become more dangerous because of our technical progression, and likewise we feel compelled to celebrate and dismiss at the same time.

Any way you slice it, and perhaps this keeps it too simple, but we are always already responding to images because we have been trained to do so. Sometimes this is our of necessity, other times because we live in a world that encourages it.

Do you think this idea makes what we did all semester seem too simple? Or, are we making it too difficult by asking the technical questions behind meaning, representation, denotation and connotation, and the like? Are we missing the point: that images are what we make them to be, both good and bad. We need them and loathe them. Further, are we dismissing the fact that they always touch at our very emotions, and in efforts to forgo this, we decide to pull them apart with academic terms and ideas? Are we too afraid of how we relate to them, so we attempt to stop it under the guise of "understanding" them?

Is it possible to say that for once, we can say they are aesthetically pleasing, whether or not our ideas of aesthetically pleasing align with the person sitting next to us? Can that be enough?

Turning to the second regime....

As I stated in class, my paper topic turned into a monster that was much more complicated than I originally thought. One of the branches of my paper that had to be "pruned," (yey for representational anecdotes that compare academic papers to shrubbery) was a line of argument that looked at technology and "seeing" gayness. The above video does a good demonstration of looking to biological science to explain social events. Latour writes about science as a second (the first being religious organizations/themes) regime of representation, one that seeks to maintain the ratios and scales in the recreation of new images. When we were talking in class, we discussed how Creation Science is a kind of blending between the two regimes, and speaks to certain kinds of Christianity making sense of itself through scientific ways of seeing and understanding. While the above video is campy, to say the least, it does bring to light the more complicated issues of biological/social causality debate in the social sciences. However, like most binaries, it creates more problematic understandings then solving. First, it puts one category against the other, setting up an either-or relationship. It is much more difficult to establish a dialectical relationship (especially in science, where it is concerned with "root causes"), thus the nature vs. nurture, or biology vs. society debates are problematic because they relate the terms to one another with a versus rather than an "and."
Looking at biological science, the symbol rules are precise and interesting. In this regime, a "gene" or section of a gene becomes a signifier for two things, what is "real" and whatever that gene supposedly controls. For some genes, this is relatively simple. For instance, the "x" and "y" chromosomes become symbols for female and male sex, respectively. Research studies that have looked at biological structures as determining sexuality run into this issue as well. When these studies take brain structure or genes as causal, the gene or brain structure itself becomes symbolically linked to the social behaviors associated with whatever the gene supposedly controls for.
Jonathan Kaplan, in his book The Lies and Limits of Genetic Research, makes a pointed argument at the use of science to "discover" sexuality. He mainly argues that sexual orientation, at least how we treat it culturally, are artificial categories. By thoroughly looking at the studies on sexual orientation, he points out that this research is ultimately like looking for genetic causes for personal tastes--like looking for a "chocolate lovers" gene. Similarly, he also notes that any gene that would contribute to homosexuality would, most likely, have other biological functions as well. He notes that the environment plays a large part in gene activation, for instance, fruit flies that have genes making them resistant to DDT lived in environments where DDT didn't exist. What did those DDT genes do before the environment presented them with the chemical DDT? Similarly, what did genes that led to homosexuality do before placed into the cultural contexts necessary for the expression of that gene? Kaplan's addition of this question to the puzzle, however, still privileges the biological explanation of human behavior.
Both regimes of representation are modes of understanding the world and making sense of it. When turned to the human body and sexual desire, then, both are different approaches to making sense of the sensations our bodies experience in our human experiences of sexuality and desire. Through language, visual symbols, and simple motion (in this case, I mean Burke's concept of motion, meaning that which is there when human symbol use isn't), our existences are rife with misunderstandings and misattributions, especially when it comes to our own bodies. When it comes to human sexuality, we will always come up against the question as to what genes actually do under different cultural contexts, and the polysemic nature even of our genetic code. Keep in mind that all genetics have potential multiple meanings in an environment, the same genetic codes that give sickle cell anemia also resist malaria. It seems, however, science is failing as a representational regime for dealing with the multiple meanings of biological structure as it relates to human sexuality--it would perhaps be more significant to look at how genes for particular biological structures (ie. genes that control for nerve sensitivity in genitalia for instance), how those genes relate to the actual proteins created and used in the body, and what those proteins are able to do in relation to other proteins and genetic codes, what sensations that creates in the body, how people interpret those sensations via cultural symbol systems, etc. Good luck finding the funding for such an extensive project. But it does not , and will not, stop science from looking for visual markers for social identities. The video, as it shows the search for a Christian gene, is comparable in this respect. It is looking for a biological, bodily marker for a social identity. Nevermind that such a genetic marker may actually exist (perhaps there really is a fundamentalism gene? or perhaps a gene for cultural conformity? but why don't we search for those types of genes? is such a search even possible?), so much as it becomes constitutive of future questions, representations, and translations of our understanding of human sociality. In the case of the video, the search for and finding of a Christian gene becomes constitutive of what it then means to be Christian. Similarly, the finding of a gay gene, lo, even the search for a gay gene, is constitutive of the social meanings for being gay. Interpretation of these discourses is always a large part of meaning-making as well, and scientists become hard pressed to provide explanations necessary for how messy and complicated identity formation and sexual practices really are. I propose the following "recipe" that reflects an example of the complexity science would need in order to truly address, and frame as passive, human experience. It should be noted, however, that human choice is ALWAYS a factor, and that choice is always made in reference to or as a part of bodily experience. Humans could not choose to fly before the invention of flying devices, we made travel choices in light of that experience of our bodies. Thus, acting on sexual desire is ALWAYS a set of choices made in light of experiences of the body, and it is the interpretations of these past and current choices that are deeply constitutive of how we identify ourselves. Thus, the following is a schematic for a conception of sexual identity.

George's Crazy-Complicated representation of the processes leading up to homosexual identity.
Genes a, b, c, d, etc.
+ Exposure to chemical a, b, c, etc. (including hormones in and out of the womb)
+ presence of cultural practice a, b, c, d, etc.
+ interpretation of cultural practice a, b, c, d, etc.
+ interpretation of bodily experience a, b, c, etc.
+ human making choice a, b, c. etc.
+ presence of bodily structure (the genes are one thing, but the actual presence of a organ or tissue is just as important as the coding leading up to it--if a person is, hypothetically, attracted to the color blue via genetic codes, what does that matter if the person is born blind?) a, b, c, d, etc.
+ interpretation of previous choices
+ other factors (I'm sure there's more, there always seems to be)
= acceptance of sexual identity of homosexual.

linguistic anchoring?

ok, so i've been interested in the relationship between language/text and image , and have offered comments pertaining to Barthes' concept of "anchoring" of the "floating chains of signifieds" of a visual image by a linguistic message. The 'PROPS' skits on Whose Line is it Anyway offer ways to witness the interaction and maneuvering between linguistic message and visual image. The prop itself conveys more than there is in words, yet words limit the interpretation of what the prop is to be considered as, by directing our attention and analysis.

Try this: either turn off the sound OR close your eyes and only listen to the audio the first time you play the video.

War Images

During class, we discussed 9/11 images and how sensitive the media has been when publishing pictures of the traumatic event. We also discussed how as Americans, we have a right to know what is going on in this country and we should not be shaded or guarded from any information that affects our lives. However, clearly, when showing images of death, the media must first be concerned with the family and/or friends of the body being shown. Most close-up images of dead bodies are not blasted across newspapers or television screens. However, do you agree that when it comes to war, we should be shown images that may be hard to swallow? Perhaps we do not need a dead body thrown in our faces, but footage of the war and shootings and bombings and death occuring from afar should be shown to our public. Americans are terrific at pretending things do not happen. We are infamous for "remembering to forget". Has the war we are currently in become another instance of the Holocaust where once its OVER we will be told what happened and then act out in shock and disbelief that we had no clue what really took place? I think our nation needs to demand to be told details of what is occurring over seas where our men and women are giving their lives for us as we sit in our daily routines sometimes without a thought throughou the day to them. America needs to stop ignoring the facts and start demanding access to them. I dont believe that images and footage should just be thrown into our laps but I do think that a well-planned Communication process should be taken place during this war that keeps America in-the-know about the good and bad of this war. And if what we are experiencing IS the Communications plan, then we need a better one.

Panopticon vs. What Not to Wear

Jaya- I was particularly interested in your presentation when you began to speak about the panopticon. I have never actually seen an episode of What Not to Wear, but I think you described it well enough for me to get a sense of its tone. Are you trying to say that our society as a whole has become its own panopticon? Class, do you think that panopticon can actually relate to anywhere you feel entrapped and scrutinized? Maybe we have created our own panopticon by constantly policing ourselves on what we say and wear, how we carry ourselves, and how we measure our status. I guess I can see the American society as its own panopticon because we have created it amongst ourselves. Certain things are accepted and certain things are not accepted. Granted, we may not necessarily be thrown in jail for crossing the "fashion police" but society still finds a way to punish those who go against the norm. The threat of surveliance certainly is a factor in our everyday lives and not only influences our behavior when it comes to the judiciary system, but also the laws of our culture and what is and what is not accepted and awarded as the "correct" way to talk, walk, and dress.

Kevin Carter Picture

In the Cohen article on page 195 he mentions a picture by the photographer Kevin Carter. I didn't recall actually ever seeing this picture so I decided to Google it. Not to my surprise, the picture is definitely disturbing and certainly offsets the urge to do something to help this child. This photo went onto to win a Pulitzer Prize and was hailed because of its ability to stir emotion to help the little girl. I was wondering what everyone thought about this picture vs the ones that Medea posted earlier. Is it the vulture or the position of this child? Or maybe it is just that face that it is a child and the realization of her death is inevitable? What makes this different than the rest?

Which regime is this?

After reading for last week and noting all the different ways images of atrocities are used and talked about, I thought back to our reading of Latour and the two different regimes of representation he mentions. I was wondering which, if either, regime of representation images of atrocities would fit within. Are these images characteristics of the first regime, where "every displacement has to be paid for by a re-formulation" (p. 25)? Or, rather, are they characteristic of the second, scientific regime, where "Each displacement is going to be paid for not by a reformulation but by the reinscription of the same shape on a different medium" (p. 25)?
Perhaps it is images like these that take elements of both regimes and mesh them together, or perhaps it is simply a new, third regime (perhaps the capitalist regime) where images are made simply for the sake of being viewed, rather than to invoke religious feeling in the viewer or to maintain a grasp on "what is really there."

Magazine ads..are they offensive?!

As you know, I am writing my paper on women's image in advertising and how it can devalue women and their body image, especially the ads in Shape magazine. This was one of the ads that I found interesting because it is the Deal or No Deal models, in conjunction with the Ford Motor company. This ad could be seen as offensive to a breast cancer survivor, or patient, since the girls are all wearing tight fitting shirts, are all young, etc. I just wanted to give you guys some food for thought, and raise your awareness to such things, (especially when looking at Shape) since we have limited time on wed. and how Spitzack would view this and how these models are unrealistic .....I also attached the press release on what was put out by Ford. I was going to email the two female board members at Ford, since both were involved with hospitals, and one worked for the American Cancer Society..just to see what they thought! if they were even aware that the ad couls be offensive..or not...do you guys think the ad is offensive?

FORD WARRIORS IN PINK TEAMS WITH NBC'S "DEAL OR NO DEAL" TO RAISE BREAST CANCER AWARENESS

DEARBORN, Mich., October 4, 2007 – Ford’s Warriors in Pink, Howie Mandel and the models of NBC’s highly popular "Deal or No Deal" are working together to say "NO DEAL" to breast cancer. A special episode of "Deal or No Deal," will air October 19 at 8 p.m. ET /7 p.m. CT to raise breast cancer awareness, the first step in early detection, and support Ford’s long standing relationship with Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Dressed in pink, the "Deal or No Deal" models and Mandel will direct viewers to www.fordcares.com to find out more about Ford’s efforts and how everyone can get involved to help in the fight against breast cancer.

Wearing Warriors in Pink t-shirts and scarves, eleven of the “Deal or No Deal” models also posed for a print campaign, which will be featured in publications such as InStyle, US Weekly, TV Guide and Women’s Health, starting October 8. The Warriors in Pink apparel the models are wearing is available on Fordcares.com and 100 percent of the net proceeds will be donated to Komen for the Cure.

Fans who tune into "Deal or No Deal" will also see a special message featuring the Deal or No Deal models encouraging involvement and instilling passion against the disease. During the special episode, three lucky viewers will get the opportunity to win through a special Play At Home Lucky Case Game, a highly coveted 2008 Mustang with Warriors in Pink package, a limited-edition first-ever Ford vehicle designed exclusively in support of Komen for the Cure. Each sale of the in-demand vehicle provides a donation to Komen for the Cure.

In addition, contestant Ashlee Mundy, a breast cancer survivor, is joined by Sharon Osborne in-studio and receives a special message from Elizabeth Edwards and Alec Baldwin via satellite. Elizabeth Edwards has battled breast cancer and Alec Baldwin's mother has a foundation in her name, the Carol M. Baldwin Breast Cancer Research Fund out of Stony Brook, New York.

911 imagery...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc

When I was looking at this image to present in class, I thought it was interesting what the reporter was saying about the image. What is she saying...that it never happened??


•http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odp1FO0Vmuw&feature=related (coincidences)
This one reminds me of what Dr. Coonfield was tallking about with the movie being made at the same time that 911 happened..surrealism..what is real? Are they suggesting the guy who leased the buildings knew about the attack?? Knew that the attack was going to happen?!!


•http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8&feature=related - a simulated version of what happend with the planes. I know this looks simulated but it reminded me of the discussion we had about the real becoming copied..and how the highly produced images become the originals so to speak.

Image politcs and the homogeniety of the "Other"

Cohen’s article on “Images of Suffering” and how they are presented and mainstreamed in TV news reminded me of the article by Bosmajian we read in the Strat Comm class. Bosmajian, in his article argues that name-calling is a way of defining and constricting a person’s identity with words. In a larger context then, grouping the marginal under one label unifies them as one, and stifles any diverse voices that might arise out of them. In the example of Hitler’s rhetoric, Bosmajian writes about the dictator’s strategy to appeal to the German audience with the use of the “crowd mentality.” Bosmajian quotes Hitler’s words in Mein Kampf, “It belongs to the genius of a great leader to make even adversaries far removed from one another seem to belong to a single category, because in weak and ucertain characters the knowledge of having different enemies can only too readily lead to the beginning of doubt in their own right” (Bosmajian, 21). By collapsing the enemies under one common label, the enemy can be seen as weak and easy to define.

It was interesting to read Bosmajian’s thoughts in Cohen’s idea about image politics. Images can after all also help play on what Waller calls as the “out-group homogeneity effect.” Images of atrocities in third world countries are also strategically presented as homogeneous and under a single heading, and therefore it becomes easier for us to alienate ourselves from an image of trauma. Through the use of patterns of filtering images the media can present a country’s violence as “just another episode in a centuries-long Darwinian struggle for power, a twist in an endless cycle of retaliation…” (Cohen, 177), so that the viewers remain nothing but passive “bystanders” of the event. Therefore it is easy to distance oneself from the trauma and create the distinction between the “self” and the “other”. Thus news images of famines in Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan seem so similar to us and we refuse to grant them as incidents from completely different countries.

Here are two images- one from famine in southern Sudan, the other from a famine in Somalia. Can we really tell which one’s which?

p.s – sorry for the images. But I thought it was necessary.

Response to Zelizer

After reading Photography, Journalism, and Trauma, I find myself questioning Zelizer's methods for this comparison. She appears to have presented a well thought out argument, but at the same time, completely ignored the differing perspectives of each example. What I thought would have been an interesting addition to her argument would be some sort of discussion regarding how the proximity of the events played into this portrayal. Although we can be called to bear witness to the concentration camps, it is hard for Americans to fully conceptualize this occurrence from the fact that the only Americans to experience them while in use would have been the WWII POWs. Compared to the World Trade Towers, which were both a New York City and US icons, and clearly had more of an impact on the American public and our daily lives. 

Obviously it is difficult to include every facet of a particular argument into one single work, but for the sake of what she is attempting to convey, I cannot help but feel that dedicating just a page or two to perspective would have vastly aided in her execution.

The End of the Panopticon

Bentham’s Panopticon worked under the assumption of a hidden power watching every move that one made- there could not be any escape from those watchful eyes. Even though invisible, the very presence of the symbol of ‘power’ – the tower, was emblematic of 360 of omniscience and omnipresence. I think Brett talked about this in a previous post, long time back, but I wanted to bring it back in the context of Baudrillard and the simulacra. Is the power of the Panopticon still felt in this age of the ‘spectacle’?

Baudrillard gives an instance of the 24 hour reality show “American TV verite” experiment to talk about the Panoptic gaze. The concept of the reality TV he explains, lies in the paradox- “They lived as if we were not there” (Baudrillard, 28). The producer’s accomplishment was in the fact that participants in this reality show ‘reacted’ rather than ‘acted’ in front of the camera. The end of the Panopticon lies in the fact, that even though the power of the gaze is present, and visible, it does not affect any decisions taken by the participants. This paradox, he explains fascinated the viewers more than the perverse “pleasure of violating someone’s privacy” (Baudrillard, 28).
It is hyperreal in the sense that, although we know that the camera is present, we do not for a second feel that the show presents a ‘manipulated’ reality. In the world of simulation, reality TV has reached the zenith of hyperreality. In shows like America’s Top Model, Project Runway, Big Brother- we, as the audience know and can see the camera following the participants, but we still assume them to be ‘real’ rather than a ‘tampered’ real. As Baudrillard says, -“such is the watershed of a hypperreal sociality, in which the real is confused with the model…”. There is no subject, no periphery that was seminal to the panoptic gaze; the simulacra only involves a diffused and ‘diffracted’ real, where the ‘medium’ (here the gaze of the camera and the TV) is eradicated altogether.

Careers in Communication - Representation

I am going to assume that since we are all enrolled in this program that most of us either are currently or will be in the future working in the field of Communications. When we were discussing the ideas of representation, I was immediately able to relate the importance of this concept in our field. As managers of a communication process, whether it's internal, public relations, marketing, advertising, production...etc., our world revolves around sending and receiving messages. Representation may very well be the most prominent theme in our field. Since employees and the public look to us for information, we must constantly be aware of the way our messages will be interpretted. Since we are not physically present in order to explain our messages, we must ensure that whatever we send, whether it's a picture, an email, a press release, an advertisement...etc., will be accepted and interpretted correctly. Obviously there will always be room for error and a portion of the audience who will misinterpret no matter how hard we try to eliminate room for error. However, especially in today's world where new words and definiteions are continuously and frequently added to our language, we must remain up to date on the most current experiences and inventions in order to help us control the receiving end of our messages. We live in a very critical world and this class has definitely provided us with a plethora of examples of communication pieces that can easily be distorted.
Working in a large corporation, I have seen many instances of miscommunication gone bad. A simple miswording of an email or unclear sentence can lead to a world of chaos!

Portrait of Giovanni and his wife.

In the first chapter of the Virilio piece, he briefly explains the evolution of art starting from the cave painting through to the impressionist era. During his explanation he remarked that during the middle ages art saw "the background come to the surface" (page14-15). He later stated that in these works there is no blurred background and that all is important. Virilio used the example of holy pictures to make his point. Upon reading that section, the painting "Portrait of Giovanni and his wife" by Jan Van Eyck came to my mind. The painting (pictured right) is on display in the National Gallery in London in the wing devoted to Dutch artists. While it is a rather small piece, it is a rather famous painting because as Virilio said, there is no background. In this piece everything is important, the mirror displays a painting within a painting and the significance of the bed and dog both contribute to our interpretation of what is happening between husband and wife. My question is what if it were a photograph taken of this couple instead of a painting? Would we still receive the messages that the artist wanted to communicate to us? And are there really any photograph that like this painting do not have a background, where everything is important? I think this supports some of Virilio's arguments about photography. yes?

Additional Benjamin

While this section of the Benjamin article is not directly linked to Meg's previous post, it still have some relevance to the cameraman. On page 233 Benjamin uses the comparison of a magician and a surgeon to that of a painter and a cameraman. He talks about how one maintains a natural distance from their patient while the other does not eventually saying, "In short, in contrast to the magician- who is still hidden in the medical practitioner-the surgeon at the decisive moment abstains from facing the patient man to man; rather, it is through the operation that he penetrates into him. Magician and surgeon compare to painter and cameraman. The painter maintains in his work a natural distance from reality, the cameraman penetrates deeply into its web." He then makes the connection that the cameraman creates a significantly comparison to reality than the painter does. This brings me to question by what terms is he comparing "reality" in what a cameraman produces and what a painter produces? While there are obvious similarity to a film and reality vs. a painting, couldn't we argue that film can also be a misrepresentation of reality just as much? At least in a painting the artist is capturing the present and complete picture. In film the reality is recorded but is broken down, chopped up and edited to create a assumed reality. And finally if Benjamin is comparing the painter to the cameraman, the painter seems to be the observer and creates as a reaction to what he sees in reality. Can't you comment better on reality when you take a step back and look at it in the big picture sense? Does this make sense?

Some random thoughts on Benjamin

On p. 228 the article discusses the camera and the man behind it. "Guided by the cameraman, the camera continually changes the position with respect to the performance. The sequence of positional views which the editor composes from the material supplies him constitues the completed film"...so depending on where the camera and its operator stands, casts a different view or perception of that which is being filmed, is this up to the director? In Media Production, we filmed various angles of certain scripts that were handed to us, and it was up to us to choose the lighting, stage, props etc. in an alloted time and then convene and view before the end of class...by doing so we created "the audiences identification with the camera" so to speak...and obviously where we filmed created a different perception say if we filmed the actors on the steps in the shadows vs. standing in the light...this made me wonder if at the academy award shows..do the cameramen win for such decisons? or are they all guided by directors? are there any directors that are also cameramen?? random, i know...

The other thought I had was on page 232, middle of the paragraph when it states "Thus, the distinction between author and public is about to lose its basic character. The difference becomes merely functional; it may vary from case to case. At any moment the reader is ready to turn into a writer!" How odd, that this was written so long ago and yet this describes what goes on today..especially when you thing about the very nature of blogs! everyone is an "author!" ha.

Sue Coe

After reading the post about the media specatcle surrounding official and unoffical captured video of Saddam's death by hanging www.break.com/index/graphic_saddam_hussein_hanging_video.html i was reminded of the work of New York artist Sue Coe. As an artist, Coe primarily engages in political themes, and has made work addressing politcal themes such as the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the war on terror, as well as numerous other issues that have been identified with the effects of the political administration. The saddam picture and the WTC picture are captivating to me: in the saddam picture, we are offered the movement and unrulyness of the event, and are also given a portrayal of the witness capturing the scene on a mobile phone. In the WTC picture, Coe offers us a compilation of some of the most striking visual images associated with the events surrounding the collapse of the towers. The preferred and iconic images of rescue are contrasted simultaneously with the affective and tragic spectacle of bodies in flight. (There is more to this image that includes street and subway scenes)

I am most familiar with Coe's work addressing the tragedy and suffering that is the effect of the indifference that is endemic to many of our daily habits and patterns. It was after reading 'image-events' a couple of weeks ago that I first thought of Coe, and wondered whether an artist could ever produce an image event. She certainly seems to come close to performing an image event through the display and distribution of her work; she offers us images of scene that we don't have access to: slaughterhouses, meatpacking spaces, animal testing laboratories, etc.



An image event had been diefined by its ability to "transform the way people view their world." My first expereince with Coe's work was in a gallery that displayed dozens of images addressing the machine-like nature of our society's harvesting of 'meat' : factory farms, and as I mentioned above, slaughterhouses and meatpackers.






















Though I had certainly had seen numerous photographs capturing these scenes, there was something about standing in a small gallery space being completely surrounded by works of art that was affective. The subjects of these images are facing us. All the animals have their eyes on us as we gaze at the scene in which they are involved. In these last few images, Coe presents us with scenes that we that we ourselves have some role in perpetuating (if we are not vegan), though we never have to confront it. Through her work, Coe brings attention to the cruelty, victimization, and suffering, through visual imagery and representation, offering a voice to the truly voiceless.

We speak much of 'rhetoric' in our study of communication, and acknowledge the struggle of disempowered groups to make their voices heard, by constituting their identies in opposition to the dominant system of things. Much akin to the purpose of Coe's work, the perpetuators of image-events aim to challange the legitmacy of an established and seemingly self-perpetuating system. Coe's work may be related to image-events to the extent that the primary function of each is to challange public consciousness through confrontation. Coe's work doesn't allow detachment. Her imagery is hard, confrontational, and disquieting. Yet, it is art. Which leads me to wonder why many of us have not addressed the work of visual artists during this course, other than for the obvious reason that there is little time to even address that which we do. Visual artists spend their lives addressing visual communication; certainly there is value in keeping the work of these artists in mind as we think about themes pertaining to visual communication and culture.
























































For work of Sue Coe, please visit:
http://www.graphicwitness.org/coe/enter.htm

Visual Comm at NCA

I attended one of the Visual Communication panels in NCA last week and I was enthralled by one of the topics that were discussed. I thought this would be a nice platform to share it with everyone. I don’t think there were many visual communication panels presented in the NCA, something I was sorry to see. However this one panel on “Atrocity images, cultural trauma and rhetorical ambivalence” was enlightening. One of the speakers was Barbie Zelizer and her topic- “To Show Or Not: The Hanging of Saddam Hussein.”

Zelizer bases her argument on the traumatic impact of atrocity images upon cultural memory and she discusses the role of media in the creation of rhetorical ambivalence. After Saddam Hussein’s death, the official video released by the Iraqi government, across the mid-east and US after the hanging through late Dec 29 and Dec 30 was a tame and soundless one. It was the image of a man who was rightfully punished. There were no sounds that accompanied the image, the only voice was that of the British news anchor of SKY news that accompanied the video. The footage stopped right before the real hanging. The matter would have ended peacefully there but with the sudden presentation of a Second footage in Arab website and Google videos on Dec 30th changed the issue completely. It looked like an amateur mobile-phone video, and the images were shocking. If one watches the second video closely, it is not "mute" like the first one. It shows the nasty and loud name-calling and taunting that happened seconds before the former dictator was finally killed. It is a loud scene. This was aired on CNN on the 30th of December.

Through a point of simulation (I know I am getting obsessed with it) the effect was dichotomous. The audience was already on the plane of the hyperreal, the real being eradicated. However there was the second video, suddenly cropping up everywhere to deny the reality presented in the first footage. Zelizer now problematizes on the stance that the official media took towards this second footage. It could not be denied since it was practically everywhere. Her entire paper was based on how the news media reacted to the new video- the problems regarding airing or not airing the new footage. I was wondering what you guys have to say about the problems faced by the media regarding such situations. Is the mass media as powerful as it is perceived? What stance should or would the mass media take under such conditions when a second “hyperreality” is also prevalent?

simulation- an example

Here is something on simulation again! All that talk about Disney world and Celebration Florida brought to my mind something I saw in India as well. Jodhpur is a historical city in Rajasthan and it is also known as the Blue City…and it is literally blue. This is due to the distinct tinge of the whitewashed houses throughout the city. The blue houses were originally for Brahmins which differentiated them from the non- Brahmins (one needs to keep in mind that caste system is very stringent social order in India). However, gradually with time, the non-Brahmins soon joined in, as the color was said to deflect the heat and keep mosquitoes away. What is interesting to observe now is how blue tinged houses still sprout all around the historical Mehrangarh Fort in Jodhpur, even though many ways have been invented to keep mosquitoes away.

And this is where probably the idea of simulation comes in. As I said before, Jodhpur is one of the historical cities of India, and the entire city’s revenue is dependent on tourism. Tourist guides in the city talk about these ancient blue houses, but many of the houses in the outskirts are new and still blue; existing houses renovated have still retained the same hue. This reminded of Buadrillard’s concept of the hyperrreal and the imaginary. Just like “Disney land exists in order to hide that it is the “real” country”, this city too creates a simulation of the historical Blue City. For a tourist, who comes to visit this city, standing on top of the Mehrangarh Fort, the array of blue signifies the historical location; he sees these houses as part of the historical artifacts of the area. The people of Jodhpur, I feel have a lot to do with creating this simulated environment. The creation of all the blueness results in a state of hyperreality. For the residents, there is no distinction between the “real” and the “unreal”. It has all blended to create the simulacra.

Coming to think of it this is probably true for eveything that we see and perceive in the 21st century. The real has been substituted by the hyperreal. The distinction between "appearance" and "reality" has gradually faded; what we percieve now is a simulated reality. Perhaps that is why every action we take seems to be a work of "reality by proxy." The action is not of much importance, what it is perceived as, is what makes the difference. Any mass medium uses simulation- there is a wide gap between what is real and what we perceive as real. In simulation, the problem is, we do not even know the existence of that "real."