July 20, 2009
Social media may promote connectivity, but the digital revolution has drastically changed the way we interact with imagery. In many cases we no longer experience imagery or design pieces in a physical sense, viewing them only online, in the virtual world. This means that sensory experiences of touch and feel are lost, the materials used to create a piece no longer need to be considered, and scale is disregarded as images in a virtual world are often rescaled to better suit a computer moniter. This means we no longer experience a piece in context, fine art at a gallery or museum, or even graffiti as we walk down the street. The sense of occasion is lost as well as the sense of grandeur and the connotations that come with viewing a piece in the situation for which it was intended.This revolution in the way people create and experience images and design work has lead to an abundance of second rate imagery, displayed on individual’s blogs, photo sharing sites, and social networking sites. Self promotion and exhibition have become major functions of the internet, covering every space with inane and frivolous images, so that we are bombarded with too much imagery and information. Finding relevant material on the internet now means sorting through so much rubbish that the quality of a good piece is often lost. Jean Baudrillard states in relation to the concept of the ‘unlimited edition’, that, “The multiplication of images is a response to the growing public demand for them, which fatally (!) leads to demand for new venues.” 1 The work of art in a digital format can be seen as an ‘unlimited edition’, in that there is no restriction on the amount of times it can be reproduced, once an image is on the web it can be viewed, saved and passed on indefinitely, often without credit to the artist or author.In 1936 Walter Benjamin criticized the declining value of the work of art due to the introduction of mechanical methods of reproduction, with specific reference to photography and film.2 He thought that mechanical methods of capturing images detract from traditional methods of creating art. How then, would this reflect upon the work of art in the age of digital reproduction? Due to a digital photograph’s existence outside of the physical domain, the decision to convert it to a tangible object is based on the quality of the image and the desire of the photographer. Instead of developing a roll of film, a potentially costly endeavor when the quality of photographs is unknown, images can be viewed and edited on the actual camera as well as on a computer. This is a process that is welcomed by many, but I believe, leads to the exhibition of a multitude of images that do not need to exist physically and have therefore not been as well thought out as an image you would pay to produce. The concept of an instantaneous image is not new to the photographic medium. Polaroid cameras produce a snapshot of the moment, to be viewed only minutes after being taken, therefore allowing the subject of the photograph, as well as the photographer to view the image. The same can be said of the digital photograph. The difference being, the number of images it is possible to produce, in relation to cost of Polaroid film compared to digital, and the luxury of immediate editing of the digital. The combination of instantaneous images and immediate editing capabilities has created a shift in the power of the photographer. The ability of the subject to review their image can influence the decision to retain the image and hence, how it is used. This demeans the artistic intent of the photographer and the artistic merit of the image. Our world has become one saturated and obsessed with images. It is almost impossible to get through a day when a photograph is not being taken of a mundane, monotonous, fact of life; friends catching a bus, a particularly enticing cup of coffee, or a poster on the street. It feels like most people are experiencing life through tiny digital screens on their cameras and cell phones. Digital photography has not only altered the way in which images are viewed, and experienced but also the subject of captured images. With economic restrictions eradicated, there is nothing to stop us from photographing every aspect of life. “There is more and more recording of what people do, by themselves,” writes Susan Sontag. “At least or especially in America, Andy Warhol’s ideal of filming real events in real time - life isn’t edited, why should its record be edited? - has become a norm for countless Webcasts, in which people record their day, each in his or her own reality show.” 3Important events; weddings, birthdays, concerts, as well as the mundane, are recorded incessantly, to the point where the recording of the event becomes more important than the actual experience. The ability of the digital camera to produce a multitude of images has lead to a vast over-documentation of everyday life, an infinite number of photographs taken of the same event. This would be okay, if vast amounts of imagery were not presented as the recording of an event, bombarding the viewer with numerous similar images when a select few would make a better point.Everybody needs their own record, no matter the quality. This is especially apparent at live gigs and concerts. People believe it to be an unmissable experience that they will want to relive, and so they take numerous pictures and recordings of the performance. The reality of this kind of documentation is that these photos are of poor quality because of the environment where the photographer is trying to experience the moment rather than concentrate on taking a quality photo. Digital videos are even worse in this environment, often taken on digital cameras or cell phones, neither of which are built to properly function in this way. The result is poor quality sound, often of audience commentary, and the event in the background with an erratic picture. The individual is then left with a series of poor quality images that cannot recreate the experience, and the feeling that they should have paid more attention while they were there and left the recording of the event to the people who are paid to do so, because their record will be infinitely better. Prior to the invention of digital media for creating, viewing and storing imagery, there was more of a focus on recording important events than everyday life. Film was expensive and developing it more so, and it was used to record birthdays and holidays, occasions that were out of the ordinary. After developing said photos they would be stored in albums or presented as slides, but viewing them would be an event in itself. The same could be said of home movies, people did interesting things and acted for the camera because they only had three minutes and it would be a waste of film to capture the things we do every day. Digital methods of storing imagery have made it easier to access photographs and film. However, social media has allowed for the easy display and circulation imagery that has no personal meaning to the greater audience. This excess can also be seen in DVD packages and CDs. I was struck by this most recently when Shaun Micallef told viewers of television show Your Generation 4 to go to the website to see “all the things that weren’t good enough for the show.”  If they weren’t good enough for the show, why would we want to watch them at all? The same goes for deleted scenes in DVD packages, twenty seconds of out-of-context content that is presented as a special feature. These scenes aren’t integrated into the film and therefore have no impact on the plot, in short, they are unnecessary and a waste of space. But digital technology allows us to have this space, so people feel the need to fill it up, with no respect to quality. This can be seen on music CDs too. Because there is more space on a compact disk than there was on a long-playing record, musicians don’t need to edit, and end up with a mediocre album that gets boring when they could have made a shorter album with more impact. 1 Baudillard, Jean, Revenge of the Crystal: Mass Media Culture, p.702 Benjamin, Walter, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, 19363  Sontag, Susan, Regarding the Torture of Others, New York Times, May 23, 20044 Micallef, Shaun, Talkin’ ‘bout Your Generation, Network Ten, 26/05/09

Social media may promote connectivity, but the digital revolution has drastically changed the way we interact with imagery. In many cases we no longer experience imagery or design pieces in a physical sense, viewing them only online, in the virtual world. This means that sensory experiences of touch and feel are lost, the materials used to create a piece no longer need to be considered, and scale is disregarded as images in a virtual world are often rescaled to better suit a computer moniter. This means we no longer experience a piece in context, fine art at a gallery or museum, or even graffiti as we walk down the street. The sense of occasion is lost as well as the sense of grandeur and the connotations that come with viewing a piece in the situation for which it was intended.
This revolution in the way people create and experience images and design work has lead to an abundance of second rate imagery, displayed on individual’s blogs, photo sharing sites, and social networking sites. Self promotion and exhibition have become major functions of the internet, covering every space with inane and frivolous images, so that we are bombarded with too much imagery and information. Finding relevant material on the internet now means sorting through so much rubbish that the quality of a good piece is often lost. Jean Baudrillard states in relation to the concept of the ‘unlimited edition’, that, “The multiplication of images is a response to the growing public demand for them, which fatally (!) leads to demand for new venues.” 1 The work of art in a digital format can be seen as an ‘unlimited edition’, in that there is no restriction on the amount of times it can be reproduced, once an image is on the web it can be viewed, saved and passed on indefinitely, often without credit to the artist or author.
In 1936 Walter Benjamin criticized the declining value of the work of art due to the introduction of mechanical methods of reproduction, with specific reference to photography and film.2 He thought that mechanical methods of capturing images detract from traditional methods of creating art. How then, would this reflect upon the work of art in the age of digital reproduction?
Due to a digital photograph’s existence outside of the physical domain, the decision to convert it to a tangible object is based on the quality of the image and the desire of the photographer. Instead of developing a roll of film, a potentially costly endeavor when the quality of photographs is unknown, images can be viewed and edited on the actual camera as well as on a computer. This is a process that is welcomed by many, but I believe, leads to the exhibition of a multitude of images that do not need to exist physically and have therefore not been as well thought out as an image you would pay to produce.
The concept of an instantaneous image is not new to the photographic medium. Polaroid cameras produce a snapshot of the moment, to be viewed only minutes after being taken, therefore allowing the subject of the photograph, as well as the photographer to view the image. The same can be said of the digital photograph. The difference being, the number of images it is possible to produce, in relation to cost of Polaroid film compared to digital, and the luxury of immediate editing of the digital. The combination of instantaneous images and immediate editing capabilities has created a shift in the power of the photographer. The ability of the subject to review their image can influence the decision to retain the image and hence, how it is used. This demeans the artistic intent of the photographer and the artistic merit of the image.
Our world has become one saturated and obsessed with images. It is almost impossible to get through a day when a photograph is not being taken of a mundane, monotonous, fact of life; friends catching a bus, a particularly enticing cup of coffee, or a poster on the street. It feels like most people are experiencing life through tiny digital screens on their cameras and cell phones. Digital photography has not only altered the way in which images are viewed, and experienced but also the subject of captured images. With economic restrictions eradicated, there is nothing to stop us from photographing every aspect of life.
“There is more and more recording of what people do, by themselves,” writes Susan Sontag. “At least or especially in America, Andy Warhol’s ideal of filming real events in real time - life isn’t edited, why should its record be edited? - has become a norm for countless Webcasts, in which people record their day, each in his or her own reality show.” 3
Important events; weddings, birthdays, concerts, as well as the mundane, are recorded incessantly, to the point where the recording of the event becomes more important than the actual experience. The ability of the digital camera to produce a multitude of images has lead to a vast over-documentation of everyday life, an infinite number of photographs taken of the same event. This would be okay, if vast amounts of imagery were not presented as the recording of an event, bombarding the viewer with numerous similar images when a select few would make a better point.
Everybody needs their own record, no matter the quality. This is especially apparent at live gigs and concerts. People believe it to be an unmissable experience that they will want to relive, and so they take numerous pictures and recordings of the performance. The reality of this kind of documentation is that these photos are of poor quality because of the environment where the photographer is trying to experience the moment rather than concentrate on taking a quality photo. Digital videos are even worse in this environment, often taken on digital cameras or cell phones, neither of which are built to properly function in this way. The result is poor quality sound, often of audience commentary, and the event in the background with an erratic picture. The individual is then left with a series of poor quality images that cannot recreate the experience, and the feeling that they should have paid more attention while they were there and left the recording of the event to the people who are paid to do so, because their record will be infinitely better.
Prior to the invention of digital media for creating, viewing and storing imagery, there was more of a focus on recording important events than everyday life. Film was expensive and developing it more so, and it was used to record birthdays and holidays, occasions that were out of the ordinary. After developing said photos they would be stored in albums or presented as slides, but viewing them would be an event in itself. The same could be said of home movies, people did interesting things and acted for the camera because they only had three minutes and it would be a waste of film to capture the things we do every day. Digital methods of storing imagery have made it easier to access photographs and film. However, social media has allowed for the easy display and circulation imagery that has no personal meaning to the greater audience.
This excess can also be seen in DVD packages and CDs. I was struck by this most recently when Shaun Micallef told viewers of television show Your Generation 4 to go to the website to see “all the things that weren’t good enough for the show.”  If they weren’t good enough for the show, why would we want to watch them at all? The same goes for deleted scenes in DVD packages, twenty seconds of out-of-context content that is presented as a special feature. These scenes aren’t integrated into the film and therefore have no impact on the plot, in short, they are unnecessary and a waste of space. But digital technology allows us to have this space, so people feel the need to fill it up, with no respect to quality. This can be seen on music CDs too. Because there is more space on a compact disk than there was on a long-playing record, musicians don’t need to edit, and end up with a mediocre album that gets boring when they could have made a shorter album with more impact.

1 Baudillard, Jean, Revenge of the Crystal: Mass Media Culture, p.70
2 Benjamin, Walter, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, 1936
3  Sontag, Susan, Regarding the Torture of Others, New York Times, May 23, 2004
4 Micallef, Shaun, Talkin’ ‘bout Your Generation, Network Ten, 26/05/09