A whole new world
Credit to Author: Rolly G. Reyes| Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2020 16:42:42 +0000
This time, I opt to discuss a world where art, photography and politics can ride in the same vehicle we call “technological advancement.”
To start the discourse, we can definitely agree that we now live in a cultural environment pulsating with extravagant images, imitations and visual augmentations bordering on fantasies, even myths.
We are now embroiled in a confusing state of skepticism as to where the startup begins and terminates as related to language, political boundaries and, of course, as to how to tackle the relationships in-between.
With technology at our fingertips, are we better off by being informed or misinformed?
In the journalism of words and images, accurate contextualization is a necessity so as not to violate the people or event portrayed.
Thus, we find ourselves spending more time on analysis mode that may delay judgment or the instinct to take the appropriate action. Images as delivered by artists and photographers tend to be marginalized by their own captions or the descriptive explanations written by the editors.
If done in an artful manner, images can start a political discourse submerged in a lake of interpretation and approximation that may dull our perception accordingly and leave us gasping for breath.
The arts may even alter the political scenario that incurs problem solving. A thousand words may not be enough to sustain the implication hinted. Yes, digital innovation may do more harm because of the available pluralism of options — too much for so little.
What am I driving at? I don’t really have the slightest idea. I have been a witness to the blurring speed of development. Photography is now an everyday activity performed by more people than ever. Inevitable is the consciousness that they will think that their captured images will one day be professional and not amateurish.
When art becomes political, it forces us to accept ideas that complicate instead of simplify. Alternative interpretation breeds more complicated ideas. And the motion never ends.
What strikes me most is that creativity is more independent in nature. It catalyzes political behaviors without joining any group.
The potentiality of the arts reframing politics is always there. If journalism is crafted as an art and given awards of recognition, it may become a habit of a writing style bordering on fiction. Forthcoming decades may witness the catch phrase, “There goes the neighborhood.”
Another danger I would like to tackle in photography nowadays is the word “automation.” It drives us to a state of being where there is an absence of choice. Users are more and more addicted to a painless mode of “program” or “auto” modes and slowly bidding goodbye to the “manual mode.”
In politics, automation seems to be gaining popularity as well. The world we see is now automated, where dissent is normal, where protest rallies are expected to bloom.
Extremism, violence, terrorism and violence seem to be the accepted modes. Disputes are often settled by swords than by discussions in a negotiating table. Automation in this case can dry up the choices that we can make.
The more automation we have in our hardware, the fewer choices we have to make and, consequently, the less control we have over the image. Definitive options that are offered give us an “illusion of choice.”
Elections are also plagued with automation. We elect officials with familiar surnames in auto mode as if new names are less qualified. Emotions as tools preempt the electorate from their decision to try alternatives.
There is this theory that photography is always a response to the nature of culture and social construction, and therefore political in nature. Failing to thrive in this context is deemed a failure. This where similarity to politics is born. Good politics is about correct judgment that should be both critical laden with description.
Like photography, good politics is about storytelling — stories that deal about life and issues that can be both engaging and daring. It should be an interpretation of reality that is pure and unadulterated.
Politics and art should be both subjective and not objective so as not to diminish their value. Both should act with a conscience aware of humanity and its survival. They should reveal who we are and where we are going.
To summarize, we all agree that we are now living under the power of information where images and words are essential parts. Modern art, like politics can document and portray injustice in so many forms. The message is carried in various stylistic approaches.
Photography is about free speech that should be guaranteed by politics. This is where we are all enjoined to look at the tiniest pixels that can harm the whole picture. It has been our mistake to look at manipulated images and the underlying political dimension that it brings.
We cannot, therefore, separate the attributes of politics and art. Every captured image becomes political when it delivers a certain point of view. The danger in these similarities lies in the public’s inability to step back and change location for another view.
Both will continue to function in our society along with prospects of being tweaked by the environment and the expected evolution of our intellect as years go by.
***
Good work, good deeds and good faith to all.