“the major threat one faces here is to become ineffective and socially anesthetizing for the public; conceiving of a social and political document a priori, and only afterwards researching a story to illustrate it. The art institution that sustains the production and distribution of journalistic art, for its part, risks developing a kind of politics per se—a politics in itself instead of working on politics.
“journalistic art risks becoming a genre devoid of any influence, because it works on a very circumscribed audience, and does not try to enlarge it; also it does not develop its own methods of narration and style”
I imagine a room. Large full of light. There are photos hanging up surrounding a group of chairs and a table. These are centered in the room. One wall is windows. The other three hold the photographs.
The pressure that is on the photographs as documents is that they are required to begin the conversation. They necessitate it. Almost as proof and a kind of witnessing to the costs of modern life. The ignored, hidden, unseen costs. The images are of a damaged river. Chemicals that are used for treating and refining coal leaked into the river causes the water to become toxic to life. Many people live in cities. Perhaps too many and the images remind us that we are not disconnected or above the health of rivers. We drink water. So what are we going to do about it. Unlike images intended for a gallery and presented solely as art these images require a commitment after being made. In order to do justice. If we as document producers and witnesses do not follow through with the implications of our images then what value is there? Are these images meant to be consumed comfortably and selectively?
I imagine a group of people concerned about the health of land, life and people get together and look at the images. After viewing them we sit down and talk about what this means. What are we going to do. That images promote action of some kind, collective action justifies their potential and implicit failures. Is being a witness an ethical position? Necessarily so? Is it enough to always witness and listen and not offer up an action. A response that is not merely symbolic.
“are we able to generate reality through language, interactions, storytelling and performances?”
This is what is as stake.
I feel this also the convergence of aesthetics and journalism.
The struggle to generate reality is the struggle to create work that generates active spaces.
Not spaces that perpetuate a culture of fantasists. Fantasy spaces.
Fantasy has is place, but does it transform?
Michelle:
Documentary is defined as a format that is no longer about delivering a set of facts, but about evoking them. Camerotti even goes as far as to imply that perhaps documentary was never about the search for truth. I was bothered by this idea because I have always thought of documentary film as the product of the search for truth, the culmination of research. However, what I am beginning to understand is that "the access to visualization (the possibility to obtain visual material) is what determines what is investigated and what is left out. The access to the possibility of image is the watershed for what can fit into a narrative accessible to the viewer and what cannot, or should not, be represented" (42). Documentary film relies so heavily on visual material. Without it, it cannot exist. Therefore, information in documentary is dictated by available visual material and the maker's preference for certain visuals over others. I think that I automatically accepted the core of documentary as telling, or attempting to tell the truth, simply because the format is all about images and footage--records of actual places and people. However, even real images and footage, selected and orchestrated in different ways could create various narratives. Perhaps Camerotti's opinion that the effect of documentary is to cause the viewers to question: could that be true? makes sense considering that documentary could be highly manipulated/manipulative even with the use of a set of true materials. In class, we had a discussion about how to define documentary, and my answer may be that it is the product of the maker's views and opinions--not so much a presentation of unbiased information as we expect journalism to be.
Advait:
I’m curious about the publication that Cramerotti mentions (Colors); I don’t know what it means for a “design magazine, a fashion catalogue, and an illustrated reportage” to be patronised by Benneton. Is the magazine a kind of nefarious method for Benneton to proliferate their brand identity? Or is it a viable avenue for young activist/designer/journalist/artists to work and be supported by the profits of a big brand? I don’t quite understand how these “parallel company projects” are handled, and if profitability is taken into consideration.
Monetisation is something that this chapter touched upon, and something I think is worth investigating. We spoke briefly in class on the value of information, and the value of truth. As far as commodities go, value can be broken down into use and exchange (and narrative, too). This becomes trickier when applied to something as intangible (and pervasive) as information. Use seems much more important than exchange; useful information has value when it services a commodity. Of course, this is only the case if we think about this economy in familiar terms. I’d imagine that accumulation of information has become a goal not unlike the accumulation of capital; resources abound, there are pushes for increased access (to expand the markets, and so on; take for instance Aaron Swartz, and his battle with JSTOR). Of course this kind of push toward access has a certain kind of neoliberal bent. In this case, the channels that distribute the information become lucrative, right? Something like the New York Times charging for a subscription, to place value upon access? I’m wondering who would profit if Aaron Swartz had been successful? Besides “individuals”, I guess.
Alex:
I was struck the notion of context, as Cramerotti brings it up
in relation to aesthetic journalism. Cramerotti’s mention of the strange cycle
that exists holding “Mass Media” and less conventional journalism plays into
this context. “Authentic” and “official” seem to be two disparate desirables
that are defined so much by aesthetics and context. Already with art
indisputably labeled as “art,” the setting of the gallery undoubtedly changes
how the piece is perceived—you won’t consider a painting in your dentist’s
office the way you would the exact same canvas hanging instead in a MOMA, and
certainly a news article printed and hung in a gallery would be scrutinized
differently from one in it’s original context. RISD foundation teacher Daniel
Lefcourt has some work that evokes this tension, taking newspaper text,
abstracting it to crisp illegibility, and framing it as art (see http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/1747/arbitration.jpg
for example). Would knowing what the original text is change the meaning of the
piece? Should it? Do we as viewers expect that he should be exposing us to
something “important,” because it ties into the venerated institution of
journalism?
Caroline:
What struck me the most in chapter 3 of Aesthetic Journalism, and which was echoed throughout the other readings too-- is the tension between the role of the professional journalist and the amateur reporter. As Alex puts it, there seems to be a separation between "authentic" and the "official" photos, each of these labels being dictated by very different aesthetics. The authentic is usually connected to amateur photos, which transmit a sense of urgency, sometimes blurry, and many times with a jarring composition. On the other side of the equation, the "official" image is crisp and taken by an expert hand; it follows the canons and conventions of journalistic images, which are well engrained in our subconscious. One thing that is surprising to me, and it is common across all the texts, is the deploring of the fact that the said amateur "authentic" photography is being valued above the professional photography by media companies. The arguments against this "democratization" of photography range from the humanistic (for instance, Marinovich's "Blood Photography"), to the psychological (how we have become de-sensitized from any image), to the ethical and ideal (when Chanarin quotes Brecht: "the vast amount of pictured material that is being disgorged daily by the press and that seems to have a character of truth serves in reality only to obscure the facts"). All in all, it seems that we have to be critical of the idea that "anyone can be a journalist." Although I do agree that some type of formal training should be necessary in order to maintain the integrity of the ideals of journalism, part of me remains a little skeptical of that argument and cannot help but wonder if it is merely a complaint made by disillusioned professional journalists in face of the uncertainty and the deep change that their profession is undergoing.
Sierra
Camerotti describes the Internet as being “the place of resistance to authoritarian control of information” yet later goes on to state that, “the web includes – as in the offline world – cases of heavy censorship hidden behind the supposed freedom of exchange.” I am worried by the pretense he describes, in that the Internet as a platform is understood as being removed from institutionalized bias. It seems that this concept allows the Internet to function under a similar guise of objectivity in which he critics of the journalistic platform. It is apparent that the access we have to information on the web is becoming increasingly subject to similar influences that afflict the offline world. Additionally, he mentions how “The spreading of blogs, the diary-style websites updateable weekly or daily without any particular knowledge of web technology undermined the principle of institutionalized information”. I’m wondering about the relationships we have with blog platforms; the way that websites like Tumblr are designed to enable a widespread diffusion of information, yet simultaneously function as a realm in which we can easily isolate ourselves to our own personalized subverted realities. I’m not sure where this realm lies between the “reality” that Camerotti wants for people to obtain and the contemporary perpetuation of truth production.
Martha:
"Establishing the authenticity of a document is not a univocal process of determining truth, but rather a
discursive technique: the same goes for documentary making which is, first, a discursive art form. The truth-value of it relies upon a shared set of values: the idea, the author, the production, the audience and the distribution. "
What struck me most about chapter three was the dichotomy between the public, its potential in use of media and the professional realm of media. Cramerotti points out the massive use of amateur media, especially used on the internet and how its ever-growing presence is reshaping impressions of truth. Consider the situation of a person being in the right place at the right time recording an incident of great impact. As compared to the news team that shows up ten minutes later, cameras, lights and pretty reporter ready, its not hard to understand the appeal of the perspective of agenda-less Joe with his cell phone camera. My understanding of this appeal is that there is little room for manipulation as the idea, author, production and distribution occurs at once. As the News channel might be "official," the experience of the eye witness is "authentic." As both present information, the speed and manner at which they happen either leave too much room or no room for a preconceived set of values, which lends a heavy hand in an audience's intake of that information.
Hyo Jin:After reading this where is Aesthetic Journalism..I got so lost. Not really lost in a way that I don't know what it is but in a way to define Aesthetic Journalism is. Because every line I read came up to same question, what makes our belief? Is it just a technique or format that we are tamed? And are format changes? Like he was saying documentary has history of power to make people think it is true under that name. And now in our news report we trust amateur images and videos more then professional shots of reporters. Of course I can't say it never changes but the formats that we trust is those one that has certain history of it. And that doesn't change much. Like we talked about building trust system. Thus another question comes up is that is it impotent that it is truth or believable? Such as documentary that tells "possible lies" compare to documentary tries to tell unbelievable truth. Comes down to reality and representation. It is certainly reality to someone but it is just a representation to viewers. I'm not 100% sure viewers will have that same experience from any kind of format to mimic that feelings to them. Because it is a feeling it can't be same but what is important is that is it asking question. Does it have space for different questions to be asked to viewers. That is how I'm trying to understand where Aesthetic Journalism is. Another interesting point in the reading was about the internet. To be honest it was most understanding part to read. And it is such a fantastic area to present thought, works and questions. Because it is such an massive sea of information and junks where it is generated and also consumed. Lots of different media is allowed digitally entered and easily spread all over the world where ever connection is. That uncontrollableness is also beauty of internet that you never know what people will think and take and reused. Irony of this is that even though internet is flood of information that can even stalk a person, it's only for those that are up. Able to upload their stories. So certain cases it is very bias like north korea's life. Maybe that is the place Aesthetic Journalism can enter to undo bias or show the bias.
No comments:
Post a Comment