http://horsesthink.com/?p=2654
(incidentally, i'm going to try to make more regular posts from now on...)
a few questions for walter benjamin
in discussing benjamin's "the author as producer" a few weeks ago with a friend, we came up with a few questions for the author/producer himself. clearly he's in no position to answer, so i put them to others who have thought similarly about his writing. but first, a synopsis of the article will help illustrate my concerns with it.
"the author as producer" seems chiefly about dispelling myths of what bourgeois writers are actually doing when they write and publish. WB suggests that a work's quality is irrelevant in contrast with what's intended by it. for example, an author's tendency towards certain political views are a better determinant of a work's value than the degree to which it meets formal conventions. this relates to my first question, since WB seems to emphasize political tendencies at the expense of others, perhaps equally important.
in discussing tendency, WB argues that it isn't enough for an author to simply politicize his or her work. coming from the left as he does, he suggests that bourgeois artists and writers should not simply write for the proletariat or to the proletariat, since such work would only amount to propaganda or a pedantic form of pedagogy. rather, bourgeois writers should write to bourgeois audiences in order to support the work of the proletarian classes (namely, the overthrow of the capitalist ruling classes). he cites the work of bertolt brecht as an important example, since the playwright's work challenges audiences to consider the material conditions of theatricality, the culture of the theatre, and the economics of theatre-going. in short, WB cites BB as exemplary at challenging the inherited, romantic notion of the aesthetic experience or "art for art's sake," since he suggests that such apolitical formulations of art and culture ignore and obscure real material inequalities and, furthermore, promote the commodification of cultural forms. the pure aesthetic experience, in other words, is a myth that must be countered by avant-garde and politically informed practice. this leads to my second question, since there appears little consideration in WB's commentary on BB about the relationship between an author-as-producer's intended new or redefined aesthetic/political experience and the experience had by audience members.
so, question one: does a political motive—whether intended or not—trump everything in artistic practice? on the one hand, is a supposedly depoliticized or "popular" art degraded by assuming a normative stance relative to the current political climate? on the other, is a politically charged art to be exalted for addressing the same climate? furthermore, if art and politics are each circumscribed by normative practices in their own right—inherent, namely and for example, in practices of aesthetic construction and of policy-making—what factors remain that define popular or avant garde arts as meaningless or meaningful? to be pointed, who really can say whether any art—mass media, photography, theatre, painting, or otherwise—is "productive" or not?
i'll formulate question two in the next post.
"the author as producer" seems chiefly about dispelling myths of what bourgeois writers are actually doing when they write and publish. WB suggests that a work's quality is irrelevant in contrast with what's intended by it. for example, an author's tendency towards certain political views are a better determinant of a work's value than the degree to which it meets formal conventions. this relates to my first question, since WB seems to emphasize political tendencies at the expense of others, perhaps equally important.
in discussing tendency, WB argues that it isn't enough for an author to simply politicize his or her work. coming from the left as he does, he suggests that bourgeois artists and writers should not simply write for the proletariat or to the proletariat, since such work would only amount to propaganda or a pedantic form of pedagogy. rather, bourgeois writers should write to bourgeois audiences in order to support the work of the proletarian classes (namely, the overthrow of the capitalist ruling classes). he cites the work of bertolt brecht as an important example, since the playwright's work challenges audiences to consider the material conditions of theatricality, the culture of the theatre, and the economics of theatre-going. in short, WB cites BB as exemplary at challenging the inherited, romantic notion of the aesthetic experience or "art for art's sake," since he suggests that such apolitical formulations of art and culture ignore and obscure real material inequalities and, furthermore, promote the commodification of cultural forms. the pure aesthetic experience, in other words, is a myth that must be countered by avant-garde and politically informed practice. this leads to my second question, since there appears little consideration in WB's commentary on BB about the relationship between an author-as-producer's intended new or redefined aesthetic/political experience and the experience had by audience members.
so, question one: does a political motive—whether intended or not—trump everything in artistic practice? on the one hand, is a supposedly depoliticized or "popular" art degraded by assuming a normative stance relative to the current political climate? on the other, is a politically charged art to be exalted for addressing the same climate? furthermore, if art and politics are each circumscribed by normative practices in their own right—inherent, namely and for example, in practices of aesthetic construction and of policy-making—what factors remain that define popular or avant garde arts as meaningless or meaningful? to be pointed, who really can say whether any art—mass media, photography, theatre, painting, or otherwise—is "productive" or not?
i'll formulate question two in the next post.
photography and "the Law"
although in the past i've been fascinated by the contradictions inherent in "image ethics," recently i've been interested in cases where the law and photography meet. (specifically, cases where there's disagreement about what's legal and not when making pictures.)
in part i thank boingboing for that, since they routinely post on the relative absurdity of arbitrary interpretations of the law with respect to making photos. (here's an article on a town's photography ban by-law; another on photography and terrorism; and another two on photography and security guards - the first in Union Station, the second in a mall.)
i've become more interested in image law since considering that image ethics are strongly predetermined by such laws. what's normal about photographs, in other words, is also what's legal about them; though perhaps saying what's "Legal"--that is, what's in keeping with the spirit of the law, ideological or otherwise--is more appropriate. this legality (Legality) has to do with the very private interpretation of photographs: that is, they are to be private images of one's own private property.
the distinction between what's public and what's private is paramount. in an era of terrorism, of cyberpredators, of digital piracy, and of YouTube, what's morally or ethically appropriate to make and distribute images of is increasingly contested terrain. in the absence of clear consensus emerges the strong arm of the law--contradictory and reactionary, conservative and punitive--to construct (some might say "restore") a set of imperative values defining what images can be of, how they can be acquired, and (perhaps most importantly) by whom they can be made.
while it is certainly alarming, it is also quite messy. how, for example, do state surveillance laws intersect with corporate copyright law? how does "fair use" interrelate with rights to privacy? when does using a camera become a threat to national security? at what point is it permissible for imaging technologies to intrude upon our human rights?
although i'm predominantly interested in understanding why and how average, non-professional individuals make images, i've become increasingly interested in understanding the changing nature of professional image-making. this is because although new laws and novel interpretations of existing laws affect anyone making pictures, they affect those who make a living out of imaging in particular ways. with increasing corporate consolidation limiting opportunities to make a career of image-making (see Quart's recent piece, which is only slightly tangential), more dire legal ramifications to making certain images of certain people in certain locales, and technology and standards that permit the outsourcing of image-content to private, often amateur, individuals, the ability to make a living out of image-making is clearly changing. the shift, i'd suggest, is away from public- and more toward private-interest; concerns of interest to those who believe in an independent, "free" press within democratic society.
anyway, more to come on this thread, as i work to elaborate some issues of particular concern...
in part i thank boingboing for that, since they routinely post on the relative absurdity of arbitrary interpretations of the law with respect to making photos. (here's an article on a town's photography ban by-law; another on photography and terrorism; and another two on photography and security guards - the first in Union Station, the second in a mall.)
i've become more interested in image law since considering that image ethics are strongly predetermined by such laws. what's normal about photographs, in other words, is also what's legal about them; though perhaps saying what's "Legal"--that is, what's in keeping with the spirit of the law, ideological or otherwise--is more appropriate. this legality (Legality) has to do with the very private interpretation of photographs: that is, they are to be private images of one's own private property.
the distinction between what's public and what's private is paramount. in an era of terrorism, of cyberpredators, of digital piracy, and of YouTube, what's morally or ethically appropriate to make and distribute images of is increasingly contested terrain. in the absence of clear consensus emerges the strong arm of the law--contradictory and reactionary, conservative and punitive--to construct (some might say "restore") a set of imperative values defining what images can be of, how they can be acquired, and (perhaps most importantly) by whom they can be made.
while it is certainly alarming, it is also quite messy. how, for example, do state surveillance laws intersect with corporate copyright law? how does "fair use" interrelate with rights to privacy? when does using a camera become a threat to national security? at what point is it permissible for imaging technologies to intrude upon our human rights?
although i'm predominantly interested in understanding why and how average, non-professional individuals make images, i've become increasingly interested in understanding the changing nature of professional image-making. this is because although new laws and novel interpretations of existing laws affect anyone making pictures, they affect those who make a living out of imaging in particular ways. with increasing corporate consolidation limiting opportunities to make a career of image-making (see Quart's recent piece, which is only slightly tangential), more dire legal ramifications to making certain images of certain people in certain locales, and technology and standards that permit the outsourcing of image-content to private, often amateur, individuals, the ability to make a living out of image-making is clearly changing. the shift, i'd suggest, is away from public- and more toward private-interest; concerns of interest to those who believe in an independent, "free" press within democratic society.
anyway, more to come on this thread, as i work to elaborate some issues of particular concern...
peddling magazines: the raw story
sounds like there's the makings of a jt leroy novel here (only if laura albert approves, of course):
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-07-17/news/what-mainstream-publishers-don-t-want-you-to-know-about-door-to-door-magazine-sales/full
makes you wonder about those girl guides, doesn't it?
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-07-17/news/what-mainstream-publishers-don-t-want-you-to-know-about-door-to-door-magazine-sales/full
makes you wonder about those girl guides, doesn't it?
framing photographs: reconsidering the standards
i joined flickr recently, and have been reminded of how seldom people like to crop their photographs. for the most part, images are rendered in the shape of a long and narrow rectangle, the traditional aspect ratio of 35mm photographic film and 4x6" proofs that's been ported to digital camera technology and, subsequently, to the screen.
don't get me wrong: i don't have any particular qualms about this—they're not my photographs, after all. however, i do think it's worth considering what a photograph is (that is, what it's author intends it should do) in order to suggest that full-framing is in fact counterproductive almost all the time.
first, although cameras are by definition machines, they are also tools used by human beings. to say, for example, that you'll let a camera take my picture is absurd: you will always take a picture, and do so with a camera. put this way (a little exaggerated, i know), cameras are tools that humans use subjectively and selectively. in other words, people choose moments from among others to render onto film or memory card, and they make selective decisions about what, particularly, they want to focus on during such experiences. during a concert, for example, one could choose to take photographs prior to the event, though one might typically prefer to wait until the performers are on stage; likewise, one might prefer to photograph the audience's reactions to the performance, though most often one would focus solely on the actions happening on stage. decision-making, in short, is not automatic, and it is crucial to capturing images. it stands to reason that it would or should also be involved in subsequent renderings of captured imagery, transformations and transmogrifications of such raw material into more refined print and digital forms.
secondly, and somewhat paradoxically, although elements are often carefully arranged within a photographic frame, considerations of that frame (e.g. its angle, its dimensions, or its orientation) are addressed inconsistently: that is, seldom of it with the same degree of attention as to what goes in it. nevertheless, tacit manipulations are apparent, such as when photographs suggest a photographer is aware of horizon lines or the vertical lines of buildings, trees, or other freestanding structures. considerations of framing can even be said to be more persistently ignored in certain standard or "clichéed" framings, as when images are constructed using wide-angled lenses, where boundary areas are "filled in" with distorted, yet still inconsequential, detail, or where low apertures are used to render nearby elements in selective focus while the background goes fuzzy. regardless of either of these or of other techniques, there is little reason why the frame itself should be subordinated or wholly ignored while other compositional traits are given more consideration.
thirdly, photography is an inescapably expressive activity. claims to the passive, neutral rendering of natural or found landscapes, forms, subjects, or events (that is, as if a photographer is only ever representing what she "found") are false and frankly immodest. no truth is there to be discovered; only social, authorial, cultural, organizational, institutional, economic, political, gendered, ethnic, or other values are embedded there. and even this, even these values, are in place both within a frame and in the context within which a photograph might be found. in a word, photographs are only ever rhetorical: each asserts a position, one which may or may not demand their viewers to do the same. (that is, without necessarily seeming like propaganda.) for a photographer to ignore the dimension of framing on her expressive imaging capacities (whether passively or actively), is to assert any number of beliefs which she may not, in fact, personally espouse (e.g. that cleaving to photographic standards is the only logical way of doing photography; that amateurs should only ever aspire to aesthetic mediocrity, with poor framing skills being one way of doing so; that shooting full frame imparts an air of unquestionability, of visual authenticity, rather than smacking of ethnocentrist and even solipsistic egotism and self-aggrandizement; and so on). more importantly, to discount framing as a core component of such expressive symbolic communication is to deny one's role as a co-creator of our contemporary world and to take up one's place as a cog in an already well-functioning machine.
in short, unless you want to take up the compositional challenge posed by the somewhat tricky 2:3 aspect ratio of this format (as few have done, notably excepting Henri Cartier-Bresson), or unless the frame is itself an integral part of your subject matter (as in the case of David Hockney's assemblages of 4x6" photomat proofs), it might be fruitful to think more carefully about who you intend such images to speak to, and what might be said by them in turn.
don't get me wrong: i don't have any particular qualms about this—they're not my photographs, after all. however, i do think it's worth considering what a photograph is (that is, what it's author intends it should do) in order to suggest that full-framing is in fact counterproductive almost all the time.
first, although cameras are by definition machines, they are also tools used by human beings. to say, for example, that you'll let a camera take my picture is absurd: you will always take a picture, and do so with a camera. put this way (a little exaggerated, i know), cameras are tools that humans use subjectively and selectively. in other words, people choose moments from among others to render onto film or memory card, and they make selective decisions about what, particularly, they want to focus on during such experiences. during a concert, for example, one could choose to take photographs prior to the event, though one might typically prefer to wait until the performers are on stage; likewise, one might prefer to photograph the audience's reactions to the performance, though most often one would focus solely on the actions happening on stage. decision-making, in short, is not automatic, and it is crucial to capturing images. it stands to reason that it would or should also be involved in subsequent renderings of captured imagery, transformations and transmogrifications of such raw material into more refined print and digital forms.
secondly, and somewhat paradoxically, although elements are often carefully arranged within a photographic frame, considerations of that frame (e.g. its angle, its dimensions, or its orientation) are addressed inconsistently: that is, seldom of it with the same degree of attention as to what goes in it. nevertheless, tacit manipulations are apparent, such as when photographs suggest a photographer is aware of horizon lines or the vertical lines of buildings, trees, or other freestanding structures. considerations of framing can even be said to be more persistently ignored in certain standard or "clichéed" framings, as when images are constructed using wide-angled lenses, where boundary areas are "filled in" with distorted, yet still inconsequential, detail, or where low apertures are used to render nearby elements in selective focus while the background goes fuzzy. regardless of either of these or of other techniques, there is little reason why the frame itself should be subordinated or wholly ignored while other compositional traits are given more consideration.
thirdly, photography is an inescapably expressive activity. claims to the passive, neutral rendering of natural or found landscapes, forms, subjects, or events (that is, as if a photographer is only ever representing what she "found") are false and frankly immodest. no truth is there to be discovered; only social, authorial, cultural, organizational, institutional, economic, political, gendered, ethnic, or other values are embedded there. and even this, even these values, are in place both within a frame and in the context within which a photograph might be found. in a word, photographs are only ever rhetorical: each asserts a position, one which may or may not demand their viewers to do the same. (that is, without necessarily seeming like propaganda.) for a photographer to ignore the dimension of framing on her expressive imaging capacities (whether passively or actively), is to assert any number of beliefs which she may not, in fact, personally espouse (e.g. that cleaving to photographic standards is the only logical way of doing photography; that amateurs should only ever aspire to aesthetic mediocrity, with poor framing skills being one way of doing so; that shooting full frame imparts an air of unquestionability, of visual authenticity, rather than smacking of ethnocentrist and even solipsistic egotism and self-aggrandizement; and so on). more importantly, to discount framing as a core component of such expressive symbolic communication is to deny one's role as a co-creator of our contemporary world and to take up one's place as a cog in an already well-functioning machine.
in short, unless you want to take up the compositional challenge posed by the somewhat tricky 2:3 aspect ratio of this format (as few have done, notably excepting Henri Cartier-Bresson), or unless the frame is itself an integral part of your subject matter (as in the case of David Hockney's assemblages of 4x6" photomat proofs), it might be fruitful to think more carefully about who you intend such images to speak to, and what might be said by them in turn.
learn to write by... writing?!
so i'm reading Paul Silvia's book for academics, How to Write A Lot (2007). it's a helpful little book, and although later parts often focus on the subtleties of writing for psychological audiences (his disciplinary background), the first few chapters can be generalized to those working in most fields.
overall, Silvia's message is to write often. citing Robert Boice's research from Professors as Writers (1990), Silvia points out that people who write consistently (as in every day) are both more productive and more creative than those who only write when they feel like it.
Silvia makes no bones about these stats, suggesting that those who he calls "binge writers," those "[s]truggling writers who 'wait for inspiration,'" should, he suggests, "get off their high horse and joined the unwashed masses of real academic writers" (26). Silvia quotes a passage from Ralph Keyes' The Writer's Book of Hope (2003): "Serious writers write, inspired or not. Over time they discover that routine is a better friend than inspiration" (49; in Silvia, 27).
Silvia does acknowledge that establishing a routine is easier said than done, and suggests multiple strategies like setting realistic goals, forming writing groups amongst (dedicated and committed) peers, and maintaining scrupulous ledgers of minor accomplishments in order to track incremental progress, all as part of routinizing the writing process.
if for no other reason for reading it, Silvia's book cites a number of other sources on doing and managing writing in a reference list at the end. however, as a critical and impartial glance at something we all (or I, at least) take too personally, this book offers more than just this.
at the core of it, Silvia's ideas, backed by Boice's research, suggest a craft-based and experiential view of writing. in other words, we learn to write best by writing. the subtleties of the craft—such as learning to organize our thoughts, recognizing that time and not place/space is more crucial to the process, setting realistic goals, and broadening the definition of what counts as "writing" (i.e. it's not just what we do on the page, but all the planning and preparation that goes into it, too)—these subtleties are only learned by doing. while they may be tempered by texts like Silvia's or others, it's ultimately a matter of us learning for ourselves how to order words on a page.
i guess i'm not saying anything new, but perhaps just pointing out that if we're our own best teachers, then that can only extend so far as how we define "ourselves." whether we consider ourselves individuals, atomized and discrete, or social beings, autonomous yet integrated into cultures and subcultures impacts a great deal on how we teach ourselves, the successes we might have, and the overall import (and importance) of our work. this is, of course, all contingent on whether we do start, systematically and with organizational zeal, to write.
welcome to « media pedagogies »
welcome!
this site will host some rants and musings about how we learn through the media: about media technology and representations, about the societies we live in, and about ourselves as parts of those societies. this site is meant to be inclusive, but here are a few things it won't be:
« media pedagogies » won't be about:
enough about that: let's start with a post.
this site will host some rants and musings about how we learn through the media: about media technology and representations, about the societies we live in, and about ourselves as parts of those societies. this site is meant to be inclusive, but here are a few things it won't be:
« media pedagogies » won't be about:
- ... "education" in the traditional, "schools n' books" sense
- ... science, calculus, wood shop, etc.
- ... me and my big ego
enough about that: let's start with a post.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)