Assignment 2- Review
Name: Anhar Al-Shameri s3678518
I declare that in submitting all work for this assessment I have read, understood and agree to the content and expectations of the assessment declaration – https://www.rmit.edu.au/students/support-and-facilities/student-support/equitable-learning-services
Blog reflections
Week 5 – Legacy Photography (practice analysis)
Week 6 – Legacy Video (practice analysis)
Week 7 – Online Photography (practice analysis)
Week 8 – Online Video (practice analysis)
Review
The ‘Assignment 2 Review’ has focused on the contextualising the terms ‘photo’ and ‘video’ in the course prompt, through the set readings and analysing examples of practice.
The prompt: How do the affordances of Instagram affect the way photos and videos are authored, published and distributed in the network?
- Provide your own definition (in your own words) on ‘photography’ in relation to legacy and online media, by referring to the readings, additional research and the practice analyses completed in your blog. (309 words)
When photography was first introduced, ‘much of the discussion of the medium has been concerned to define it and to distinguish it from other practices’ (Wells, 2015). Some, celebrated photography ‘for its putative ability to produce accurate images of what was in front of its lens’ and viewed it as means of ‘natural documentation’ (Wells, 2015). This caused legacy photography to be regarded ‘outside the realm of art’(Wells, 2015) due to its potent accuracy, which at that time opposed the definitions of art and aesthetic. On the other hand, artists like Henri Cartier-Bresson took photography as an instant form of painting that you can’t fix, and if it was to be fixed, it will result in the capturing of another photo[1]. He didn’t think of photography as an act of documenting, but also a means of visual pleasure[2]. According to Wells, those were the main perceptual complexities on legacy photography (Wells, 2015), yet more developments occurred to photography as a practice to its contemporary online condition.
With the revolutionary breakthrough of mobile phones, camera phones are now the default consumer camera of choice (Palmer, 2014). This represented something new in the history of photography. To begin with, due to the portability and accessibility of camera phones, ‘Photography shifted from being a privileged discrete act into something more generic and continuous’ (Palmer, 2014). This online/digital condition of photography made the photos more mundane and intimate, which caused a cultural shift in supporting an informal way of consuming images, and thereby producing entities like selfies and memes. In addition, photography became a major means of communication, so much so that it created the notion of ‘visual chit-chat’ and enabling ‘pictorial conversations’ (Palmer, 2014). Lastly, online photographers have the advantage of easily editing using accessible apps, and that enabled photography to a more creative and artistic place.
- Provide your own definition (in your own words) on ‘video practice’ in relation to legacy and online media, by referring to the readings, additional research and the practice analyses completed in your blog. (345 words)
Initially, video practice was enrolled to ‘create a new type of cultural production and alternative institutions to support more egalitarian and pluralistic notions of political and cultural interaction’ and ‘it was also about changing the nature of the relationship between reader and literary text, between spectator and spectacle, and the changing of this relationship was itself premised upon new ways of thinking about the relationship between art (or more generally “representation”) andreality’ (Horsfield, 2006). This revolutionised video practice at a time the masses were increasingly fascinatedby the television. At that time, ‘television reinforced the status quo while simplifying, or omitting altogether, representations that did not fit consumerist demographics’ (Horsfield, 2006). This resulted in the stimulation of misrepresented demographics into creating their own content – a content that aimed to liberate them socially, and with the introduction of portable video equipment that was made possible. Activists used this opportunity to ‘document a new type of direct-from-the-scene reportage that was not manipulated, biased, or reshaped in any way to distort reality’. Artists saw it as a medium of aesthetical experimentation, regardless of the rare access to the equipment and the process of editing. It enabled ‘aesthetic experimentation beyond simply recording an event or performance in front of a camera’ (Horsfield, 2006). So, artists and many professional editors would use video technology to achieve broadcast quality content.
Early on, almost everyone practiced video ‘for the sole purpose of fun and not for monetary purposes’ in an amateur sense. However, today ‘music videos occupy at least the top 5 most viewed videos on YouTube, signaling a shift in digital video consumption from amateur to professional, often corporate sponsored, content’ (Berry, 2018). That is to say that ‘the concept of the amateur has shifted historically’ (Berry, 2018). Originally, amateurs used video practice to ‘romanticized vision of the bourgeois nuclear family’ (Berry, 2018). That is to say, political and economic agendas weren’t part of their practice. Whereas now, online videos are making a serious amount of money as their content is mostly commercial and it promotes a more high-maintenance lifestyle.
- What differences and similarities did you discover between the way legacy and online photos are authored, published and distributed? (473 words)
There are three main differences between legacy and online photography. For starters, authorship in online photography is a lot more complex and fragmented whereas its often one person in legacy photography. For instance, Cartier-Bresson was the sole author of his photo, but for online photography , there’s a focus on collaborations with other professional personnel. Thereby, showing that there is a complicated authorship due to more involvement. Moreover, with the ‘developments in computer-based image production’, ‘the authority attributed to the photograph at stake’ (Wells, 2015). In other words, complex authority leads to a decline in authenticity of a photograph. In the case of film photography, the authorisation of an image had limited visual manipulations, so authenticity wasn’t as questionable as it is now. Furthermore, there was more value put into authoring as opposed to publishing and distributing due to the scarcity of the resources. Finally, Instagram introduced the concept of multi-authorship, that is you don’t have to take the photo anymore you just have to be responsible for publishing and distributing it.
With the use camera phones and Instagram to not only display online images, but also instantly sharing them, the modes of publishing and distribution have decentralised significantly in relation to legacy photography.As Palmer puts it: ‘The camera(phone) itself has become a mass communication platform, the photos don’t move in a linear fashion…. this resulted in the images being in constant circulation’ (Palmer, 2014), so everything can be done in quick succession in one device/platform. This wouldn’t be possible without the affordances of Instagram. Instagram revolutionised the authoring, publishing and distributing of photography, with a focus on sharing. This stimulated its monetary aspects. For example, many users treat Instagram as a public portfolio to promote their work and attract jobs. The practice of photography has become increasingly influenced by what the platform of Instagram can do, for example @wafaaobphotography is using Instagram not to author her photography but to publish and distribute it. Furthermore, the distribution model online (Instagram) is so decentralized that one photo could’ve been reposted by multiple accounts and that means that the spread increases exponentially. Whereas, legacy photography is distributed through a magazine that has a limited audience or displayed in gallery or an exhibition. Moreover, printing photography in magazines and other mediums enabled experimentation in print media/literacy (Wells, 2015). It is worthy to note that the limitation in distribution means for legacy photography gave it a sense of uniqueness and attributed it with an ‘aura’ associated with art, unlike now, where the singularity of a piece is lost as it’s been made into several copies all around the world (Wells, 2015).
On the other hand, the constitution of a great photo is the same for both. They are both used for the same purposes, and they consider the same factors upon capturing a photo like subject-matter and characteristics of the lens.
- What differences and similarities did you discover between the way legacy and online videos are authored, published and distributed?(303 words)
As legacy video put the prototype for online video, there are some differences and similarities. In terms of authoring, there’s a difference in accessibility. In legacy times, access to video equipment was limited and their usage was complex, which led to the content being produced to be authored by professionals. On the other hand, making a video in this online age doesn’t require as much of a hassle. That is to say access to means of production is not as limited, in fact, with the use of camera phones and Instagram, access isn’t an issue. So, one can easily make a satisfactory video without any considerable effort, and if an amateur video was made, it could still gain attention due to the ongoing social norms, especially that we live in an era of sharing. Yet, I believe that authorship in both cases is similar as the prior relied on multiple personnel and the latter is heading in a direction that requires more people to be involved.
As for publishing and distribution, publishing a legacy video would be either through television (pre-recorded or live) or through a gallery/exhibition. This means of publishing didn’t result in a relatively significant amount of distribution. A reason for that is the fact that with Instagram authoring, publishing and distribution can be done in the same virtual place. This limits the delay and pushes for a platform that relies on sharing. Consequently, the ease of gaining views called for a monetary consideration by videographers. Moreover, online videos are subjected to algorithms that provide users with content similar to their taste.
Yet, in both cases ‘Video presented the first, small-scale and closed-circuit model of how a decentralized media could participate in challenging mainstream culture and continues to provide creative, alternative uses of the medium to this day’ (Horsfield, 2006).
References:
Wells, L 2015, Photography: a Critical Introduction / [EReserve] (Fifth ed.), Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon ; New York
Palmer, D 2014, ‘Mobile Media Photography’, The Routledge Companion to Mobile Media, edited by Gerard Goggin and Larissa Hjorth, pp.249-255
Horsfield, K 2006, Busting the Tube: A Brief History of Video Art. Video Data Bank, School of Art Institute of Chicago, pp. 1-9
Berry, T 2018, Situating Videoblogging’. Videoblogging before YouTube, Institute of Network Cultures, pp.9-22
[2]analogies, Henri Cartier-Bresson -The Decisive Moment, Vimeo 2016, viewed 9th September < ttps://vimeo.com/178360907 >