Happy 20th WWW!

What the first web page looked like. 

Sexism another reason not to use Wikipedia as a research resource

http://wwwWhybWikipedia is sexist.forbes.com/sites/deannazandt/2013/04/26/yes-wikipedia-is-sexist-thats-why-it-needs-you

http://www.forbes.com/sites/deannazandt/2013/04/26/yes-wikipedia-is-sexist-thats-why-it-needs-you/

Nan Goldin

As I was reading through Nan Goldin's excerpt in Illuminations, I noticed her specific word choice, phrasing and descriptions of her friends and experiences.  For example, when she first saw her 'friends', she referred to them as, "the most beautiful creatures I'd ever seen".  I thought it was a very interesting description of these people who would soon become her friends and subjects.  She then goes on to talk about seeing them as "a third gender that made more sense than either of the other two".  As it said in the beginning of the reading, she was completely infatuated with these people, and became obsessed but also respected them and what they did and who they were and I found that to be very inspiring.
Goldin then talks about leaving and attending art school, and then returning to her 'old world', only to find that she was an outsider looking in.  She had completely immersed herself in those friends, and in that life, so leaving it for a little while must have been difficult, but returning and seeing that she no longer belonged must have been heartbreaking.
Lastly, I really enjoyed her statement referring to her book not being about "people suffering gender dysphoria but rather expressing gender euphoria.  The people in these pictures are truly revolutionary; they are the real winners of the battle of the sexes because they stepped out of the ring."  I think that is a great summation of her experiences with this group of people and her understanding of their decisions and life choices.

Photography and Surveillance (Again)

I want to post again under the title of photography and surveillance, incorporating recent events.  In my original post, I angrily ranted about the unjust repercussions for recording officials performing illegal actions.
In the Boston bombing that just happened, the "officials" not only asked for the recordings made my the public to help find the culprit, but also used photography and surveillance to display the suspects' faces so the city could be on alert.  Here you see two forms of surveillance taking place.  The surveillance by the public and the surveillance for the public.  In my initial post, it was clear which was happening:  The surveillance by the public was the recording of the officer doing illegal things, which ended up being illegal in itself.  But in terms of the Boston bombing, they ask for these recordings made by the public to help them find the bad guy.  So the recordings of an officer doing something bad is illegal but the recordings of another "regular guy" doing something bad is completely legal and sought after.  Granted, I am very much simplifying the horrific event that took place in Boston, but I still want to make the comparison of unjustness between society and society's officials.

Shock Photography

What I found most interesting in the shock photography reading was the undeniably truthful point that the public view these so called “shock” photographs from a position of comfort, or as the article states, “from inside our freedom”.  Because of this standpoint, not many of the photographs actually do what they are meant to which is to promote a “wow” reaction.  The reading also makes a good point when saying that the photographer who took and produced these images was shocked for us, “shuddered for us, reflected for us, judged for us”.  The photographer did all the work for the viewer; he/she took the photograph because of his/her reaction to the scene or event.  But the public, viewing the photograph from a position of comfort, just sees the photograph of the event and the not the event itself, creating this disconnect and therefore the lack of “shock”.  But the question stands:  Did the photographer really take the photograph because he/she was indeed shocked and wanted the rest of the world to be as well, or did he/she photograph the event because of the reaction he/she thought it would receive?  I think an interesting idea to consider is whether the public’s reaction was supposed to be unprecedented, or if it was supposed to follow the photographer’s reaction.

Richard Prince Reading

After reading the article If the Copy Is an Artwork, Then What’s the Original? and discussing art work that deals in appropriation during class, I have to say that I am still not sold on the idea of using another person’s work as your own. I think there are instances in which this can work, such as the Google maps images that are “harvested” by Matthew Jenson for his project 49 States, and even to some extent Sherrie Levine’s Untitled appropriation images after Edward Weston or Walker Evans (I was particularly convinced by the idea that Sherrie’s re-casting of the images allows the models to retain some identity). However, I cannot understand Richard Prince’s appropriation art, and when reading this article I thought maybe my perspective would change, but if anything was only solidified in opposition. The fact that Prince’s work (really Jim Krantz’s work) sold for $1.2 million and is so highly sought seems ridiculous. Ultimately, Prince is not creating his own work, or doing anything that at first glance seems to make a statement. I did give some thought to the idea that it may be a generational gap issue, as to me the Marlboro ads are not familiar, and I would not have recognized much of the imagery if it was not pointed out to me. Ultimately, my general opinion of appropriation art is that it’s definitely hit or miss, and in this case Prince’s work, for me, seems like a miss. 

Invisibility and Trauma Reading

While reading Speaking the Unspeakable: Invisibility and Trauma after 9/11, I couldn’t help but think of how the article, in light of more recent events, now related to the bombing in Boston and the release of Kathryn Bigelow’s Zero Dark Thirty. Randell discusses the fragmentation of trauma in relation to movies but also television programming, which reminded me of the initial coverage of the Boston events as well as the opening scene for Zero Dark Thirty. In the hours after the marathon bombings occurred, my roommate and I were watching CNN hoping for actual information, only to be inundated with the same clips looping over and over. Randell remarks that TV, “dilutes it [disaster] into manageable segments”, which is exactly what CNN was doing, intentionally or not. The more we watched people running in terror, the less real it seemed, and therefore easier to watch. In the case of Zero Dark Thirty, the opening scene is almost exactly the way Randell describes the opening to Michael Moore’s documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. In Bigelow’s film, the opening screen is black, and audio recordings of phone calls made from inside the towers are played, much like the audio/black screen combo present in Moore’s documentary. It is interesting to me that with all of the really tough imagery covered in the film (i.e. torture, violence, wounds) and the proximity of its release in relation to the 9/11 event, Bigelow still chose this kind of distancing technique. However, I suppose that decision goes back to Randell’s overarching point, which is that trauma is easier to grapple with when seen on television rather than in a movie. 

In light of my most recent post on shock photography I'd like to expand and comment on Jon Meyerowitz's photographs for 9/11. He was asked to be the exclusive photographer for 9/11, instead of taking the shock photography route, he embraces a different technique. He focuses on the aftermath, the "trace of the event." There is an interesting juxtaposition between calmness of his photographs, and the stills we've all seen taken from video on 9/11. Those freezeframes were chosen to depict 9/11 as accurately as possible. They tell you what happened. Campany states that for years photography taken of an event defined what the event was. It was these photographs that somebody would look for to find out what happened and form opinions. This is interesting to me. In the past, photojournalists would have to search to capture the perfect moment indicative of the current event. Now, we have all these videos to choose stills from, to represent this event, like an icon. Stills of 9/11 were chosen as icons to present the information. In contrast, Meyerowitz captures the event by showing the aftermath and finding a way to instill a sense of hope.

Shock Photography

In his article “Shock Photography," Barthes explains the problems with shock photography. This article is interesting because I've always been a quiet critic of shock photography. I feel that photography should have a deeper message than to simply shock its viewers, I think it's a cheap trick to get emotion and a reaction out of people. I believe in art that gives a bit of credit to it's viewer, to allow them to look further, to invest time in the meaning of the photograph. Barthes articulates this by saying when looking at these types of photos we are "dispossessed of our judgement, someone has shuddered for us, reflected for us, judged for us, the photographer has left us nothing."

Mapplethorpe: Revisiting and Rereading

In Mercer's second essay he begins to explain the merit behind Mapplethorpe's work. At first Mercer didn't exactly see the significance behind these photographs, but here he begins to explain how Mapplethorpe is ironizing formalist photography, he is using tactful homoeroticism and as a strategy to challenge homophobia. In the photo succession Weston strips the sexuality of his images and focuses purely on form-- how the light falls against a figure, purely formalist images of objects taken out of context. He is looking at the body as an art form, Mapplethorpe on the other hand, inserts the sexuality back into these formalist images. He is ingeniously recontextualizing photography from the photo succession. In his essay, Mercer explains that Mapplethorpe juxtaposes elements of the valuable, classic, nude with "pornographic conventions," which "decenters the hierarchy...of racial and sexual representation." I agree with many of these points in Mercer's second essay and I too believe that Mapplethorpe work holds merit.

Reflection

In closing with the semester, I thought I would reflect on my favorite section of the class instead of talk about a reading from the textbooks. I think my favorite image of the class was Jacob Riis's Bandit's Roost, 1888. I liked how the image was composed in that it evokes a very shady, confrontational feeling because they figures are all staring at you. Even more so, the two men that are closest to the viewer, are both looking at the camera who are by extension looking at us, and one is holding a bat and the other is reaching in his pocket. In the background, the sky is hazy and the fence blocks the end which represents the lack of safety. 

I especially liked interpreting this image in reference to talking about Lange's, Tenant Farmers without Farms, Hardman County, TX from 1937. The linearity and flatness mimic the open and flat Texas plains. The men's hands positions also suggest they don't know what to do with their hands because they're not working. It is similar to a police suspect line however they give a sense of pride for what they have left rather than what they have lost, during the Great Depression. 

Despite the huge year gap, these images are quite similar. Both images are very confrontational, uncomfortable, and unsettling to the viewer, due to the fact that the figures are staring right at the camera. Most importantly, both have a heavy emphasis on masculinity because in both images, the men are not seen as working. A big part of masculinity for men is being able to provide for their families and while we don't see the families in the images, we do see the men and how their ability to provide for them is taken away. 

I thought these two images together posed some great perspectives, seeing that they are during two different time periods but still have similar meanings. 

Photography, Birth and Death

Photographing the dead, as we have talked about in class, was known to be a very private and personal act done by families. Today, we would find it very disturbing and eerie to take a picture of a dead body of a loved one. However during the Victorian era, life was not as long as it is now, in fact nobody lived to be 90 or 100 like most to today. One quote that Wells mentions is by Roland Barthes who says "that the corpse is alive, as corpse: it is the living image of a dead thing" I thought this was an interesting perspective to the dead body in terms of photographing, or freezing it, in a moment in time. We have learned that photography is evidence of something that once was. In History of Photography 1, Micheal Ortwitz stressed the idea that when you take a picture of simply a mug on a table, that mug was really there in real time, making it a moment in history. Similar to how a body was once there and in that exact moment, dead or alive, it reiterates the idea of a moment frozen in time. In a sense, this is how the corpse becomes alive again. Again, we don't find this too appealing because taking pictures of dead bodies is something that only forensic and criminal investigators do to solve crimes. This is mainly because photography has given us the ability to capture our loved ones over and over again while they are living, and we want to remember them as they were, not as a dead corpse laying in casket. 

Human Rights + Environmental Activism Workshop

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs100/1108232493357/archive/1113125826027.html

Richard Prince and Appropriation

I don't really have a problem with appropriation. I believe in the concept of Richard Prince's work and the fact that he's repurposing an image to say something new about humanity and our society. He's photographing photos taken by artists and using them so say something new. In the postmodern era photography has changed. It is a tool to say something new. It is not necessarily about the beauty of the photograph and the craft of the artist but the message this artist is conveying. It's not like he's rephotographing these photographs to say they're his and claim them as his own. I completely understand how the original artist might become upset. I think if I was Jim Krantz and some "woman active in the art world" and said "Richard Prince has a photo just like that!" about one of my original photos... yeah, I'd be a little mad too. I think that Richard Prince should find a way to credit his sources so there isn't this type of confusion.

Amy Rule, Tina Modotti: Letters to Edward Weston

Amy Rule’s essay, Tina Modotti: Letters to Edward Weston, was extremely interesting to read. I really enjoyed being able to read little snipets of Modotti’s life and what she was going though and what she had found important enough to write to Weston about. My favorite part to read about was when she compared the cameras and photographer life over in Germany compared to what she had been used to in Mexico. I found that part to be the most fascinating, how life could be so different than what she was used to. She had to special order most of her equipment because she preferred what she was used to over the new that was normal in Germany.

Elizabeth Barrett Browning On Dageurrotypes

Elizabeth Barrett Browning’s word on the Daguerreotype was quite interesting to me.  I love to hear of first hand accounts of moments in history.  She spoke so highly of this new invention and how she could have in image of someone forever.  The idea of having this photograph of a loved one rather than a painting made by the “noblest Artist” is quite radical in this time.  Paintings were highly regarded, but Browning doesn’t care.  She wants a daguerreotype and could care less about paintings.  A painting could show someone’s likeness, but Browning states that “the very shadow of a person” in a daguerreotype gives it a sense of realism and how this new invention will overtake the portrait world.  If I were living in the early daguerreotype world, I too, would think it would take over portraits.  Although a sitter must be still for up to 10 minutes, it is much easier and faster to take a daguerreotype than have an oil painting done.  Overall, Browning’s short account on daguerreotypes was fascinating and her interest in this new invention shows in her writings.

Lee Miller discusses Man Ray

Reading what Lee Miller has to say about Man Ray is really quite interesting.  She never speaks of herself or her time with him, only of his work and life.  When speaking of how Man Ray comes to find solarization, Miller never puts herself there, even though she had a hand in its discovery.  This shows she only cares of Man Ray and his achievements. She also says how Man Ray thought all photographic advancements were meant to be shared and made accessible to all.  This idea is wonderful.  As a student, I feel that techniques and ideas should be used and shared by all.  But in reality, a great idea or new way of doing things are kept to one’s self because of the competitiveness of the art world. We should be more open to collaborating and sharing ideas like Man Ray was.  

Photographic Body In Crisis, Wells Reading

In the Wells reading, The Photographic Body In Crisis, the opinions of several critics/theorists are discussed in relation to the advent of widespread digital technology in photography. Digital imaging, according to some, changed the very nature of photography. Within the last 20 years, digital photography has increasingly becomes the norm among photographers and photojournalists, with film photography becoming an expensive and “against the grain” choice. According to theorist Ritchen, because digital photography was much easier to access and manipulate than traditional wet darkroom photography, we would no longer be able to trust images. This would inevitably harm the ethics of photojournalism, and result in our loss of reliable information about current events in the world. These concerns were shared by other critics, such as Mitchell, who felt digital imaging was “the dawning of a post-photographic era”. Wells, However, looks towards art history of photography, and points out that even before digital, photographs were manipulated. Wells asserts that photography itself is a manipulation, therefore the real anxiety caused by digital photography is the loss of the humanist subject as “the rational centre of the world.” As someone who has grown up in a sort of “in-between” phase of film to digital photography, this argument to me is very interesting, but also somewhat lost. My first cameras were film, and when I moved into digital it didn’t seem that significant to me. Considering these dystopian perspectives, it seems to me that photography is always a manipulation via a series of choices, and it’s interesting that to some digital seemed to threaten an already fragile set of ethics.

Lee Miller Illuminations Reading

I found Lee Miller’s account of her time covering World War II in France both frightening and impressive.  As a female photojournalist at this time she was certainly a minority in her field, and on top of that constantly surrounded by male soldiers. I would imagine there was some stigma and sexism she would have had to overcome regarding women being capable on the front lines. If this was the case, Miller does not openly discuss any such issues.  However there are two moments in the essay that I felt may have eluded towards some different treatment as a woman, where she is asked on one occasion to kiss some wounded soldiers, and on another to “speak American” for the entertainment of a few of the homesick soldiers. Another part of this essay I found particularly interesting was how Miller had to find film in an abandoned camera shop. Today with digital imaging technology and super portable SD cards with large storage capacity, the idea of running out of film while on assignment isn’t something I would consider, much less having to develop film in a basement with old chemicals. In a strange, probably horribly desensitized way, I found this more shocking/creepy than Miller stumbling over a severed foot in the street.

Feminist Arts Award Open to All Students!

-------------------------------------------------------------

PLEASE APPLY! AN EASY APPLICATION AND OPEN TO ALL STUDENTS!

UNDERGRADUATE AWARDS-OPEN TO ALL

Feminist Arts Award: Given for the first time in 2002, it was established to recognize feminist visual, music, poetry, fiction, or film created by an undergraduate. This award was established to honor the wonderful outburst of feminist arts activity at UConn.

1)     To be considered, please submit the original piece of art - if necessary also include a short essay explaining the feminist intent of the piece.

2)     Please indicate whether or not the nominee is a current WS major or minor. 

Chase Going Woodhouse Prize: Awarded to an undergraduate for an academic project that focuses on feminist concerns. This prize is named in honor of former Congresswoman and Director of the Women’s Service Bureau. An activist and leader among the first generation of post-suffrage women in Connecticut, Chase Going Woodhouse provided an example of commitment to women’s interests and to realizing feminist goals in practical politics.

1) To be considered, please submit either the original or a copy of the academic project as described above. 2) Please indicate whether or not the nominee is a current WGSS major or minor.

Gladys Tantaquidgeon Award: Presented to an undergraduate student whose academic and/or community work reflects a dedication to the understanding and advancement of women of color in the U.S. This award is named in honor of the Mohegan Indian medicine woman, anthropologist and community educator, Gladys Tantaquidgeon, who featured original scholarship on Eastern Native American culture through the Tantaquidgeon Indian Museum. In her leadership role and scholarly research she has highlighted the significance of Native American women’s culture. 1) To be considered, please submit an essay or recommendation letter that describes the nominee’s work as described above. 2) Please indicate whether or not the nominee is a current WGSS major or minor.

Nomination Procedure

1)     Self nominations are welcome, unless otherwise indicated

2)     You may submit the required documentation to the WGSS Studies Program Office in Beach Hall Room 421

3)     Or mail it to us at UConn-WGSS, 354 Mansfield Road Unit 2181, Storrs, CT  06269-2181

4)     Or email it to wsinfo@uconn.edu

****Deadline: Monday, April 29, 2013****


If you have any questions, please email the committee atwsinfo@uconn.edu or call at 860-486-2186.

Surveillance

I'm drawn to Cheryl Sourkes series Homecammer. These images of private video cams broadcasted publicly were not meant to be works of art. Sourkes describes webcams as "portals to inaccessible places...[they] constitute a portrait of comtemporary culture, one that interrogates the more readily available, popular media versions."

These images are dark, a bit eerie and creepy, a comment on the human condition, how seemingly private situations are now short google search away.The reasons these videos were streamed vary, but they were not meant to be art, none of these videos were composed to display beautiful compostions, none of these videos were meant to document an event or say something significant, they were merely used to talk to someone else (or maybe they weren't exactly talking...) the juxtaposition of making these images into (quite intriguing) photographs is very interesting to me. In a way, it reminds me of pictoral photography, the blurred focus and painterly feelings each one gives. In pictoral photography, photographers used a soft focus to make the photograph resemble a painting, thus easing the transition to photography as fine art. Here, the blurred quality of these images references fine art and distances you from the shock of what some of these subjects are engaging in. This idea of taking something people overlook - a dingy still from a webcam - and making it into something else is interesting.

Photography and Surveillance Posting

This topic is interesting and relevant to today's mass mediated society, particularly in light of Monday's bombing in Boston and the images, videos and audio that were collected by the media and average citizens and are now being used by the government to help pieces the events together. The readers, particularly Karen Beckman's article and its comments on the visuals of war and how it is often used to question wars and torture and draw attention to atrocities, got me thinking about all of the images of September 11th and the extreme support from the American people at the beginning of the Afghan invasion and the "War on Terror" that is still going on today, 12 years later. Acts of terror like September 11th, the Marathon Bombings and Pearl Harbor strike the general population differently because they are so random and there is so much opportunity for any average person going about their daily business to be caught up in them, and they are made that much scarier and that much more real when they are seen, not only read about or reported about. To that extent, I the events of September 11th had not happened in the 21st century, if they had happened a half century earlier when there were no television helicopters, cell phone cameras or "citizen journalism," if the images of  September 11th that are now symbols in our minds as much as they are part of a historical event - planes hitting buildings, two tall smoking buildings, two sky scrapers crumbling into our most prized city - if it had just been a story on the news and photos of just the aftermath, would Americans have reacted so strongly? Yes, we would have gone to war and we would mourn the victims, but would American citizens in the Midwest be experiencing post traumatic stress disorder like they did? Would the international community have rallied around us to the extent that they did? I would argue that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are similarly devastating national attacks, and while they were war time attacks that were the result of the attack on Pearl Harbor, there is not live coverage of the incident as it unfolded that was broadcast around the world. If there had been, I would argue that there would have been a similar international fall out like there was for 9/11. In thinking about all of this, I found it interesting that the argument can be made that photos can act to take away support for war and at the same time bring more people into a devastating event, cause more trauma, and rally up more support for war efforts.

Photography & Surveillance Readings

These ‘eavesdropping laws’ seem absurd now because they are outdated, and seemed unbalanced in comparison with the overbearing surveillance put on the public by the general authority of any kind (police, government or corporation).  I’m all for challenging this surveillance in all aspects of life, as we have to adjust to the constant possibility of being watched and our actions being analyzed, though this law with such a silly name doesn’t seem like the right option.  It acts like a trap, a protection of this already overbearing authority from the power of one person able to document them.  It is obvious by the reports of the officers what can be perceived by the naked eye can be interpreted and fudged to be understood in any way, and one persons saying their perceived truth can easily be brushed aside if a larger group with more power says something different.  However it’s not the case with a recording.  How is it possible to have two consenting individuals when it comes to daily surveillance, in every public place, or is in now assumed that it is simple expected wherever we go.

In Boston, a city in a state where there is eavesdropping laws, hundreds of people documented the area of the marathon before and after the bombing. On their own people have collected these images from the public to speculate on the event, following some 'suspects' through the images, circling and noting what they carry, who they give it to, what they’re wearing.  The public using the public images to investigate and share them again with the public, the information has no validity at the moment, but regardless on whether or not the people in the images have anything to do with the bombing, how could they really use the eavesdropping law?  Since the photographs come from hundreds of individuals on the day, the public would become protected by it’s own strength in size.

Photography and Surveillance

This weeks readings really reiterated how powerless we all are in comparison to figures of federal authority. It’s an interesting transition from the last couple of weeks of lectures that focused on the “othering” of marginalized groups because it illustrates that everyone is rendered powerless by governmental authority to a degree.

The debate over privacy vs. “free speech” with respect to photography is interesting and arguably fundamentally irresolvable, as it is a matter of defining a degree to which privacy is more sacred than safety and that threshold will always change to match the needs of specific circumstances (usually defined by those in power, which in this case is the government). Though I do find the concept of controlling artistic expression an impingement on our right to free speech, I also question where the threshold is when it comes to individual privacy. Cheryl Sourkes webcam images illustrate the debate we had earlier in class about the offensiveness of appropriation for artistic purposes and asks us to question whether artistic originality is even possible

Woman Getting Arrested in her front yard

After reading and watching the video tape of the woman getting arrested, it made me a little mad. I think in todays world since there is so many opportunities to be your own journalist/ photographer that authorities get scared that it will appear every where. In this case this woman was video taping an arrest from her yard which is legal to do, but my opinion was that the officers simply did not like the fact that they were on camera. They obviously took their authority too far, which in my opinion a lot of officers of the law do so. She followed their orders and did everything according to the law. As her friends stated at the end of the video that they let the guy go who they were originally arresting to take her into jail which is ABSURD! Officers were afraid that what they were doing was wrong so they took her to jail in order to cover up their wrongs. I think that too many people do that today because it is so easy. Especially in cases like this where there is evidence. Back before cameras and video camera people were less likely to be caught for doing wrong but now a days everything can be captured and people that are capturing these photos and footage are the ones getting in trouble rather than the people causing the trouble which is completely wrong.

Photography & Surveillance

I found the Gizmodo reading, “Are Cameras the New Guns?”, incredibly frustrating and disturbing. It astounds me that the recording of police officers is being criminalized to this extent, and that police officers consider bystanders with cameras such a threat to themselves and their work. The comparison of cameras to guns, and referring to photographers as “shooters” seems extreme, and honestly somewhat offensive, as cameras do not promote violence in these situations, but rather are attempting to provide a fair assessment of a situation in order to prevent violence. The justification for the wiretapping/eavesdropping laws when applied to bystander recording seem feeble at best, and I found it particularly ridiculous that, when explaining all parties must consent for a recording to be legal, TV news crews were excluded on the basis that their recording is “obvious to all”. This brought to mind those obnoxious news segments regarding the obesity epidemic where the station loops a video of overweight people walking down the street, from the chest down. That to me feels much more like an invasion of privacy and unfair use of video, as these people did not openly consent to their image being used as an example in this way, nor does removing someone’s head from the frame censor their identity completely. In the case of police video recording, the ultimate goal of preventing police brutality, seems a much more useful documentary process. It seems to me that police surveillance can work either way for officers. It can help or hurt them, either by aiding in investigations, or possibly even to prove there was no police brutality involved in a situation. However, if police are so afraid of it hurting them, perhaps they have something to hide that we should be investigating. 

Photography & Surveillance

After reading several of the articles pertaining to this weeks topic of photography and surveillance I am shocked to discover that it is illegal to record any police interaction unless the officer is made aware of the recording. If the cops are being fair and justice then I am not sure how it is right that a person cannot record what is taking place. It seems like with all of the new technology we have in the world, using it in court to prove innocence would be a helpful strategy for people. I also think the lawmakers need to think about all of the monitoring that goes on everyday to watch citizens in shopping malls, as one of the articles described, on the streets, in schools, etc. How is it fair that the public cannot record lawmakers but they can record our every move? I found this weeks reading even further more interesting because just last night I was talking to a friend about how much the public is actually monitored. She told me that the computer videos we assume are just for skyping and taking private pictures, can actually be controlled by the government to see someone if they needed to. This all seems like factual information you learn about on shows such as Law and Order, but I think it is true that the government has way more power over the public than we really realize and it all begins with photographic monitoring. I am shocked that many people are so comfortable sending private pictures to one another. The hommer website was a great example of how you cannot predict when your private photos will be leaked to the public and you cannot rely on technology devices to stay private. I think the idea one of the authors proposed about holding your camera up to the security cameras one day is a great one because it shows that the public is not willing to standby and have our privacy diminished for an act of security that does not even show to work in many cases.

Photography & Surveillance

It is clear that the post-9/11 world is paranoid, suspicious, and has the tendency to overreact.  I am not saying that America does not have reason for these strong reactions towards recording audio and visual scenarios, but I do believe these responses lead to some unjust prosecutions.  Referring to the artist facing fifteen years in jail for recording his own arrest without consent from the commanding officer doing the arresting, I believe the artist is receiving an unjust punishment.  Granted, laws are laws; I am not disputing that.  I am, however, calling attention to the asinine use of official power to punish a street vendor illegally selling silk-screen patches for $1.  To punish this artist not for the illegality of his product sales, but for recording the arrest is just ridiculous.  Another example:  The recording of police misconduct.  The action of recording, itself, may be illegal, but the actions the police are partaking in are equally as illegal, yet the videos are discarded because they were technically illegally recorded.  This just goes to show that we might be coming down harder on the law since the 9/11 attacks, but our punishment for crime just might be displaced.

Assigned post: Photo Surveillance

Surveillance is an interesting reflection on photography as a medium. It allows humans to document the action of others, with or without permission. Personally, the idea of security cameras does not bother me, because I am aware of them. They come in handy when someone does something they should not be doing. However, the ways the cameras are used is not under my control, and I do not really know whose eyes are on me, and that I find disturbing. But, when I go to a public place I already know I cannot control the actions of others. The part that really bugged me was the prohibition of recording police officers. I lived in Rochester when the news story broke about the woman who got arrested for recording an officer from her yard. It's disturbing because it made everybody feel helpless. There is a lot of crime in Rochester, and there is always a story about the corruption of the police force. So, the fact that the public in some cases is helpless in even providing concrete evidence of police actions is troubling. I also found it interesting that the law in Chicago had to do with eavesdropping. This pits video against photography by suggesting that the sound makes the difference in how completely truthful the recording is. But, as we have discussed all semester, both photography and video can skew reality in a way that makes us misinterpret facts. 

I guess what it comes down to is that I think if citizens are expected to be subjected to surveillance, law enforcement officials should be too. Privacy is already practically nonexistent today, with the number of ways humans are tracked digitally, whether it be online or in cameras. That cannot be changed. whether or not this is ideal, if people did not do anything wrong, then what would they have to be worried about? 

Haley Taylor

Photography and Surveillance

In 2013, there seems to be an increasing urgency from the public for transparency; this has become evident to me from a few areas of interest, beginning with a seemingly public distrust in governmental spending brought to light during the 2008 deficit. More recently, Man Bartlett in his presentation in ‘The Pit’ on Monday, discussed his Twitter account that was highly controversial, where he tweeted all of his financial transactions over the course of a year and detailed discounts he made with particular art dealers and not with others. At the National Block and Bridle conference, in Iowa, I also learned that farmers are trying to be as transparent as possible to rebuke the public’s belief that ‘factory farming’ is harmful to animal welfare. These notions of transparency correlate with any of the Photography and Surveillance readings about police surveillance by the public, because of the growing effort to stop police brutality. As McElroy points out, surveillance of police officers is never looked down upon, until an officer is caught acting out of line. In a case, like Goods, which was quite effectively unnerving, it seems that any PUBLIC arrest, which will be released in the paper, is public information and therefore the filming of it does not overstep any boundary of privacy. Transparency in our police system could reduce many cases of officers abusing their powers, as well as those who are doing the right thing in their job; transparency in the greater social spheres, lends itself to more openness, not just in the literal sense, but perhaps it ties into the notion of post-modernism in its effort to bring to light contemporary social issues that need to be addressed. 

Photography & Surveillance: Are Cameras the New Guns?

Like many of the other students, this article angered me. I had heard of these laws before but reading the details again made me just as angry as the first time I had heard about it. Illinois, Massachusetts, and Maryland are three of 12 states in which all parties must consent to being filmed, as stated in the article."Recordings that are flattering to the police - an officer kissing a baby or rescuing a dog - will almost certainly not result in prosecution even if they are done without all-party consent," this statement from the article could not be more true. I remember seeing a video online taken by a civilian of a police officer in his car driving & texting & also at some points speaking on the phone. The state it was taken in (I can't remember which state it was" does not have the restrictive photography laws, but the cop pulled him over to question him as if he were some sort of criminal when it was the police officer was the one doing something dangerous & illegal. They do not want us to see the corruption that runs deep law enforcement. As noted in this piece, officers who abuse their power have been brought to justice by civilian recordings. Photography is a threat to their corruptions and abuses & I sincerely hope that this law will not become a federal mandate.

Photography & Surveillance: Cheryl Sourkes

I was pretty intrigued and disturbed by this web-based piece of work done by Cheryl Sourkes. When I was viewing this work as the viewer, I felt like I was violating the privacy of the people in the photographs and I ultimately felt a connection, almost like I can relate to the pixelated people in the photos because of the intimate environments they were portrayed in, very similar to the environments that I have encountered before, ie, a bedroom or kitchen. 

It's so interesting that these photographs are works by Sourkes when I believe she didn't actually take the photographs, but rather found them on the Internet. Really makes me question yet again, who is the artist. 

The titles of these photographs also captured me, mainly because they were all so different. There were some captions for photos that were straightforward and obviously evident as to why it was titled that way, like the one titled, "Foot" with someone's foot sticking up from under the covers of a bed. Then there were other photos like the one of the two people having sex on the couch that was titled, "Congress". I wonder what her reasoning for the sudden switch-up of title usage was. Nonetheless, this work along with the readings for this week were interesting and captured my attention. 

Photography & Surveillance

Reading these articles were interesting, but honestly, it just made my blood pressure rise. In the 'Are Cameras the New Guns?' reading, I was thoroughly discussed of  the hypocrisy and bigotry from the combination of the police and the courts. The fact that three states have already made it against the law to record them in any public space is absolutely ridiculous. I see this as a way of controlling how art can be expressed, ultimately changing the meaning of art, which is supposed to be a freedom of expresssion.

I think that this article is especially relevant today due to the very recent bombing that happened in Boston Massachusetts, which is one of the states with these anti-recording laws. When these bombs went off, there were hundreds of people there with cameras, whether it was on their phones or on their professional-grade equipment. When the bombing actually happened, there's no time for the cops to give consent to these people taking the pictures. It's almost mind boggling that the recent front cover for Sports Illustrated has an amazing photograph of a runner down on the ground while cops are running drawing their guns with chaos and dust in the back. This image portrays the police in a postive and heroic light, which is why it made it on the front cover in the first place and I am unequivocally sure that these police in the photo did not give consent for the photographer to take this photo.

These absurd laws are just contributing to the paranoia in our society and the obsession for recording not only serves as entertainment, but as a challenge to the common people; It gives people more of a reason to rebel. Police should be subjected to laws just like everyone else. They shouldn't get a free pass and be able to approve or disapprove which photos they think they look good in. It's just plain unethical.

Photography and Surveillance

The readings posted in the Photography and Surveillance folder really opened my eyes to the corrupt cops in this country, and made me fear that I will one day be arrested because a cop too consumed in his power will feel like it. I have dealt with a cop very similar to the man in the video who arrested the woman for filming the arrest. He was directing traffic and told us to go a way that we didn't want to. After trying to explain to him that we wanted to take a turn and not go straight,  he then said if we didn't listen to him we would all be arrested for not taking a police order. It is scary to think about cops as people we should fear instead of trust to protect us. My uncle has been a dedicated cop of Connecticut for over 30 years now and it's people like him who I know there are still good police officers on the force, however you never know with the new young cops who let the power of authority get to their head.
I also found the Cheryl Sourkes images very disturbing. I am confused if she took those photos herself or just found them on random computers. If she found them on random computers to show that someone is always watching, I am very afraid and freaked out that this could be happening right now, as my laptop is open, writing this response. This is a total violation of privacy and she cannot just take other people's webcam images and display them on her website. However, like I said, i was confused about that link so I could have the wrong interpretation.

All in all, these readings really made me think twice about what is right and what is wrong with photography and surveillance and my opinion in some of the controversial matters that come up with this topic.

Photography and Surveillance Assigned Response

When reading about photography and surveillance I find it interesting how police offers would arrest someone for video taping an event. The Rochester woman was well within her rights to take the video on her own property, and her neighbors confirmed she was not doing anything to endanger the police officers safety. Sometimes I think it is because the police offers do not want to be video taped incase they do something wrong. If the police officer were fully informed of the law he would know that this was okay for the woman to do. It makes me think as if the police officer had something to be suspicious of. In some of the articles it talks about photographing on-duty officer. The idea of both parties consent does make sense, but if you are not doing anything wrong I do not see why there would be a problem in the first place. In one of the articles it mentions how if there was not two-party consent, but it displays the officers in a positive light the charges will be dropped. I find this very troubling. I personally feel like this is one more law to further control the nations citizens. 

Photography and Surveillance: Webcam RATters

The webcam image photographic work of Cheryl Sourkes definitely left me feeling unsettled and reminded me eerily of an article I found online a couple of months ago. The article “Meet the men who spy on women through their webcams” can be found at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/03/rat-breeders-meet-the-men-who-spy-on-women-through-their-webcams/ and discusses the way in which hackers use a virus program called Remote Administration Tool to not only execute commands on their victims’ computers, but also to turn their webcam into a one-way surveillance camera.  The creepiest part about these self-named “ratters” is that they can infect computers and operate webcams without the user having any idea that anything is occurring. The ratters are able to stealthily invade the homes of their so-called “slaves” and watch them for hours on end- they consider this a form of entertainment. The ease in which the hackers can operate in secret as well as the user-friendly nature of the Remote Administration Tool software really enable anyone with access to a computer the ability to spy on anyone else who possesses a laptop with a webcam. While it may be argued that the internet is a “public” place, and therefore any content posted online is fair game to be viewed by anyone, anywhere, these “slaves” are not posting anything online or even necessarily accessing the internet. Technology has increase the extent to which people are able to spy on each other to such an alarming magnitude that we are not even safe in our own homes. The Sourkes images disturbed me because they seemed to fall in the same category as these images and videos captured by “ratters” and Sourkes does not explain on her website exactly where and how she obtained these images. This art just further enforces the scary truth that anytime you use your computer equipped with a webcam, anyone could be watching.

Representations of Trauma

Of all the readings this week, I found Randell’s essay “Speaking the Unspeakable” the most thought provoking. I was particularly interested by her discussion of the representation of trauma through television and cinema and the forms it takes through each medium. It had never before occurred to me that television is used to depict the informational aspect of trauma, while cinema is used to harvest collective trauma for entertainment purposes.
It was interesting, also, to note the different ways in which each of these video mediums goes about representing trauma. On television, live news coverage displayed during or immediately after a traumatic event is very fragmented. News is presented to the viewer in short, flashing clips from multiple channels and sources all at once. This fragmentation of the traumatic event serves not only to diffuse the tragedy and make it easier for the viewer to comprehend, but also relates to the fragmented way in which the human brain itself experiences the shock of trauma. Cinema, on the other hand, works to diffuse the trauma through incorporating it into various fantasy narratives. This displaces the trauma from any lived experiences and memories the viewer might have, and although the depiction of the trauma itself will still most likely evoke personal memories, the fantasy of the film allows for the translation of trauma for entertainment purposes.   

Photography and Surveillance

I found these articles interesting, and I agree with most of them. In the case of Christopher Drew who was arrested for recording his own arrest I don't think that is right. I think that there is a double standard in place for photographing public events, specifically police events, in these cases that we read about. I believe that the double standard is that the images and videos are okay if they portray the police in a positive light, and they are illegal if they are shown as anything that can be read as questionable. I think the clearest example of this is of the motorcyclist who had a helmet camera on at the time of his arrest, but the police officer said nothing about it until almost 2 weeks after when he posted the video and it showed the officer in an unflattering way. I think that trying to control what people record in public is wrong, and also improbable. What about news stations, are they allowed to cover police happenings? And what about breaking news events, like the Boston Marathon Bombing. There is no way that the anyone could have controlled the type of visual coverage that was recorded.

What I found a little unsettling is the images by Cheryl Sourkes, especially the webcam images. It seems to me like she obtained many of these images possible through hacking into other peoples computers and looking through their webcams (even when the viewer thinks it is off). Which is bothersome to me, even though I never leave my computer open when I am not using it, I still feel like it is an invasion of privacy. And I think that this is a completely different issue than that raised with police trying to control public photography.

Photography and Surveillance - Cameras new Guns?

I was very surprised to know that in three states it is illegal to record any on-duty police officer.  The reason for this was because many officers had been depicted that they were abusing their power.  If you were to document an officer on-duty, even on a public street, you may arrested and your phone seized.  Not only is it a video or a photograph that could be used as a record by audio as well.

This law seems very scary to me.  I do agree images can be altered which would cause a bad depiction of a person.  However, this also restricts the freedom of a person's rights.  Unfortunately, officers can be corrupt and use their power not for the public good.

I also find the charges completely unnecessary.  Could one image really be worth time in prison? Christopher Drew faced 4 to 15 years in prison for recording his own arrest of selling one dollar art without a licence.  To spend such a long time in prison for recording his personal view of his arrest, I find to be ridiculous.

Photography and Surveillance required post

After reading the articles under the Photography and Surveillance links the one that stuck out to me most was the one “Woman Arrested After Videotaping Police From Her Own Front Yard”. Although it was the woman’s right to record this police officer I also believe that she should have listened to him when he asked her not to record him because it obviously was making him very uncomfortable. Just because he is uncomfortable does not mean he is doing something wrong. I agree that maybe she shouldn’t have been arrested but I also believe that she shouldn’t have resisted so much. It is the same as taking photographs of random people on the streets. Although you do have the right to this it still upsets many people as they don’t want to have their photographs taken for a variety of reasons. It may be your right but you still need to give respect to other people. I don’t think it was right for the woman to blatantly disrespect the officer’s request. Also, this officer didn’t seem to be doing anything wrong and I think that he deserves to do his job without having someone standing over him video taking him just because she can. It was an intrusion on his privacy. 

Speaking the Unspeakable Response

What I found interesting about this article is about the power of memory in relationship to the power of the image. What I find interesting about these two concepts is how closely related they are to each other. The blank screen at the beginning of Fahrenheit 9/11 is suppose to make us 'active viewers' in the sense that it leaves us to draw upon our own personal memory. But I imagine for many people, their personal memories are stemmed from the traumatic images that millions viewed on September 11th. Randell mentions in her article how 9/11 is a collective trauma that everyone shares. And I understand that each persons memory will vary in level of connection or meaning, but I still think the the image and memory can not truly be separated from each other.

Another point that I found interesting in this article related to how traumatic stories can be reduced to 'cliches.' Part of the reason that traumatic events can become cliche is because of the amount of visualization that they receive, especially today where everyone has some time of a camera and can post anything online. I know that images are what makes up our memories, but then it makes me wonder how our brains filter through the images and holds on to certain ones and forgets the others. Maybe we are destined to have our memories of traumatic events to be those that are produced and constantly repeated by the mass media.  

Photography and Surveillance

After having read about the work by Trevor Paglen and seeing the kinds of images he is producing, I came to see this as an example of photography going beyond itself. The real value of photography and of studying the history and development of photography is being able to recognize just how important it has become, how much a part of our culture it is. The role of photography is constantly changing and adapting for every place and time, both creating and addressing conflict. Photography is active and passive, radical and conservative, political and aesthetic. With Paglen’s photographs specifically, the role of photography here is to make us think. “Limit Telephotography” and “The Other Night Sky” are not difficult to view or understand, but they are meant to lead the viewer to think about the complexities beyond the photos themselves. The photographs prompt us to think, and in a way, the fact that they don’t directly illustrate specific arguments or conflicts makes them that much more powerful. Just like how we considered Dorothea Lang’s title choices: she kept them simple, letting the viewer discover the irony for themselves, making the experience of the photos that much more complex and powerful.

Photography and Surveillance

     After reading the series of articles about photography and surveillance I can conclude that people in general, consistently act different when they know there is camera on them. For me it seemed like in a lot of the articles people were worried about doing something wrong on video tape. The women video taping the police man making a traffic stop for example created an uncomfortable environment for the police officer and therefore resulted in her arrest. It seems like there is a very sensitive line when it comes to video taping because, like we discussed in class, video or photography can be misleading to the eye and is not always completely trustworthy.
     Eavesdropping laws are different across the nation so it is easy to violate someone's privacy without meaning too. The Cheryl Sourkes photographs are taken in an environment that could easily violate someone's rights and privacy and remind me of some of Nan Goldin's work. She too photographed her friends personal lives and if they were not willing to be publicized she too could have faced legal issues. These articles make me realize, unlike most mediums, that photography is often capturing a moment in time. I can understand why many people feel weary about  having their actions documented.

Photography and Surveillance

I was completely unaware that recording a police officer is illegal before reading the articles assigned for this week. The statement that I found most shocking was "Even if the encounter involves you and may be necessary to your defense, and even if the recording is on a public street where no expectation of privacy exists." It seems reasonable to me that police officers do not want their interactions posted on Facebook and YouTube, because what may be considered normal may seem unusual or extreme to someone else. However, there have been numerous instances of police brutality in the past several years. It is not unheard of for police to treat people in unacceptable ways. If a camera is used as a strategy for self protection and self protection only, not exploitation of police officers, than I believe it should be legal to record or take pictures of interactions with police. I can't help but wonder what police officers are so worried about if they do treat the people they question or arrest the right way. 
The article about the "rules" of photography in public was interesting to me as well. I think that this topic is extremely debatable and depends mainly on the purpose the photograph will serve. 

Blog Post for 4/18 - Trevor Paglen

In “Telescopes, Transparency, and Torture: Trevor Paglen and the Politics of Exposure,” Karen Beckman discusses the photography of Trevor Paglen, which often function as a comment on political and human rights issues.  Beckman believes Paglen’s photographs

“Through the blurry representation of buildings, bodies, planes, and indeterminate landscapes,” cause the viewer to question, “what exactly such images at and of the limit of photography can or do show us to consider what political difference an awareness of this questions might make.” Paglen explains, “Rather than trying to find out what’s actually going on behind closed doors, I’m trying to take a long hard look at the door itself.”

In other words, what I believe Paglen is doing is examining what it is that is blocking viewer, the public, from what is being hidden from us or us. Therefore, it’s not necessarily always most important what is “behind closed doors” but instead what it is exactly it is that is acting as the door. Paglen does this through the formal aesthetics of his photographs which help act to better understand the ethics and politics “beyond evidence in a moment where ambiguity and otherness constitute two of the targets of the war on terror.”

Photography and Surveillance Response

After reading the articles on photography and surveillance, I was a little put off.  The articles in response to people being charged for videotaping their arrest make me weary of police officers and the laws put in place to protect them.  The only reason people feel the need to record their interactions with an officer is because of police brutality.  The men and women of the law are supposed to protect and serve their cities and towns.  Most do protect and serve properly, but the few that do not are protected by laws that ultimately hurt the people they are supposed to protect.  Wendy McElroy wrote on Gozmodo.com that “Cameras have become the most effective weapon that ordinary people have to protect against and to expose police abuse. And the police want it to stop.”  The truth of the matter is that people would not have to record police interactions if police officers properly did their job, without using excessive force.

Another article tells of a woman who was arrested for legally taping police officers on her private property.  The rest of the article states that there were some differences between the paperwork filed by the arresting officer and actions seen on the video tape.  Its stories like these that make me weary of police officers.  Some feel that they are above the law and can do whatever they want, but in reality, no one is above the law.