Light, Time, and Representation

Claire's video piece "Amazon Haiku" raised some interesting questions about representation in photo and video work. These questions are, I think, relational to just about any photo or video. Darren's photos from the DNC and RNC are, I think, questions of representation as well, or at least that is a way one might see his photos from these events in the in-progress state they are in.

Claire's video, taken as a simple yet expressive statement about animal behavior, without any biological or environmental "facts" purported, makes for a visually pleasing experience. I found myself wanting more details, facts - but the poetic narration (hard at times to hear clearly) kept it framed in this expressionistic format. I would have felt it more observational w/o the narration and music, but then what would we have?

Since we had no other source of information, I & many others in the class assumed that these were shot in the wild, in these animal's natural habitat. This is what occupied my mind while watching, and I became increasingly skeptical of what it was I was seeing. So rather than being absorbed into the work, I was caught in this internal debate about the location that these images were supposing to show.

I was convinced this was shot in captivity when I noticed that a log one of the otters swam around was clearly fabricated. I didn't come off the skepticism, though; I continued to evaluate every shot that came up and I would judge it as "real" or "fake". "That rain falling on those birds isn't real", I said to myself.

But the conversation & discussion during the critique changed. It wasn't so much about whether this footage was shot in these animal's natural habitat; it hinted at a fact much larger. Even if they were recorded in a game reserve, or even what could be considered a "natural" environment, how much of that is really their "natural" environment? How far do we want to dig in order to emerge with a satisfactory explanation?

I believe that we can also look at Darren's convention photos with this lens as well - one that calls not just the content into question but the representation of the subjects within those images.

Empty streets, barricades, sparse small crowds. A urban environment,  I would have never guessed these were from the last two presidential conventions if I didn't have prior knowledge. Is that important, Darren?

While their arrangement for Darren's crit seemed somewhat hap-hazard, I also will sometimes just throw images up on the wall and see if there's anything there. What I have found useful was to do this, then consider the images individually, closely and without the distraction of the other images. There is a major caveat tot this practice, though, which I will go into a bit later.

What strikes me about these photos is their lack of people. Interesting to me is the fact that the conventions are in progress but outside each one very little is going on. I can easily associate US presidential conventions with demonstrations, unrest, and violence. With all the important issues in our society today, why isn't there someone - anyone - trying to be heard?

Both of these projects could be used to understand a kind of visuality that results in what a photograph or video image explicitly says, or doesn't say. It is like a train arriving at a station: we've arrived at our destination/definition. We are satisfied with what we are seeing, and no more information is required to  make our own explanation.

How far do we go? If something is supposed to be "real", where is that reality lie? Are these images really happening/had really happened, or is this a theatrical construct? Or is it all a theatrical construct? If this is a kind of theater, can't I construct whatever I like? If I pay attention to detail and craft, do I end up with a Chekhovian drama?

If I take a picture and that subject is reflecting light towards the camera that was generated 13 billion years ago, what is it that I'm taking a picture of? It isn't the subject as they appear now, since the "now" of the picture and the "now" of the subject are two totally different times. What I'm seeing is what light has traveled the expanse of the universe to arrive at Earth for us to observe.

The light represented in my previous post is almost as old as the universe is thought to be. So while the photo(s) might have been "taken" in 2011, the subject - that which the photo presents - predates it by, well, whatever 13b years is to you.

How does this factor into the photo's authenticity? Its representation, or ability to represent? What is it that we're looking at?

I think we are looking at time, or maybe a capital-T "Time". In this case the whole of time, actually quite linear, reaching out from the origin of the universe and pointing directly at us through the lens of our camera. But then again that may all we see when we look at any photograph.

                  

This here is the American outlaw Jesse James (1847-1882). While this photo was taken sometime in his life (photographer and date unknown), we can assume that it is authentic. Right? We can, rightly, assume that it was not just made or was something that was taken at some other time other than what it purports to represent.

I wonder how skeptical we would need to be in order to verify the authenticity of this photo. But perhaps a larger question is why? Unless we are trying to establish identity, who really cares what Jesse James looked like (though quite a striking lad if I must say so myself). His celebrity may be motivation for us to learn more, or perhaps there is some financial gain was can make by proving this to be authentic.

But as Errol Morris (or "Tink" Johnson, more directly) points out in The Umbrella Man, there is a "cautionary tale" worth heeding: be careful or at least very mindful of how close you want to get. Things can become very strange and offset the reality that the photo supposedly represents. This will in turn change your reality. Just sayin'.