PHO702: Critical Research Journal – Jasmine Murray Photography

Week 11: Consolidating Practice – A Reflection

Intent

“I think it’s important to ask: Who is making the work, and for whom? Who controls that narrative, and how is that disseminated to the general public?”
Frazier, LT.R. [in] Wolf, S. (ed) (2019; 74-75)

Throughout this module my main intent has been to communicate the notion that social media and photography in general is not “authentic” and that the perfected curated manifestations of the social media feeds are ultimately a lie and to reconsider their consumption and aspiration to unrealistic false realities. I have communicated verbally and in writing these intentions by supporting my practice’s viewpoint by referencing to theorists from a variety of backgrounds e.g Freud’s Uncanny and Relate’s research.

Inform

**Figure 1** Murray, J. (February, 2020) *Rejected Still ‘An Authentic Lie’*

“Pictures inform other pictures, and projects inform other projects. It’s not so linear, and more of a web.”
Edmonds, J. [in] Wolf, S. (ed) (2019; 70)

I have found my practice has been informed through a variety of means. Visually, as mentioned in Practice & Preparation: A Reflection fellow contemporary practitioners, who share similar life experiences in regards to the impact the internet and social media has had on them whilst growing up, have practices which align with some of my own intentions and in some instances we share a similar nostalgia to the customisability lost from the early internet and a disdain to the cookie cutter visual identity of websites today from the visual layout, down to the very content itself. Contextually this has led me to explore and look at 18th century art particularly portraiture by Gainsborough which follow the trajectory of modern visual outcomes on social media, except instead of a face filter (such as those found on Snapchat), the output was a filter by the artist’s hand himself to flatter his sitters. A Christie’s article has even described the period of 18th century portraiture in comparison with today’s addiction to the selfie and write: “As with the selfie today, portraits were also a chance for more self-conscious sitters to be depicted in the latest fashions.” (Van Vliet, M. 2016) Critically I have informed my practice in particular through in-depth research into psycho-analytical theories in particular those who explore and research the Uncanny which I mentioned in-depth on Practice & Preparation: A Post on the Uncanny.

Reflection

**Figure 2** Murray, J. (February, 2020) *Rejected Still ‘An Authentic Lie’*

Thoroughout PHO702 I have used my research to change my path of editing my sequence. Initally, my output used semi-transparent locations, as well as a gradient background from pink to blue behind my couple which contained a hidden message of a twist on traditional gender roles commonly shared on social media. However I quickly discarded this ideas as I felt they convoluted my main intent and in the case of Figure 2 made it far too obvous the figures in my images were dolls.

**Figure 3** Murray, J. (March, 2020) *Is this the real life? (from ‘An Authentic Lie?’)*

By Week 6, I finally produced outcomes, I felt successfully achieved what I had set out to achieve, such as Figure 3 with the figures placed against glitched backgrounds, mostly urban and of London that I had taken back at the start of this module as research. Unfortunately due to the Coronavirus outbreak imposing restrictions I was limited to the photos I had taken for research to glitch, however my final outcomes arguably work better than if I had been able to go to the locations I ha wanted to, as I incorporated and layered into my images archival graffiti photos. This was however after a change in my project to visually include the coronavirus pandemic into my work, and after deciding in Week 8 that my images had become repetitive and in some cases the outcomes themselves were visually weaker than others within my edit, such as Figure 4 which was not particularly dynamic in pose, nore background which was mostly a boring blur of glitched green.

**Figure 4** Murray, J. (March, 2020) *Rejected Still ‘An Authentic Lie’*

The final edit of my work follows a path of comparison between the authentic lie pre-pandemic and currently in the midst of a pandemic through images of the couples paired together.

Professional/Viewing Context

“There are certainly people that I feel a kinship with – but that transcends traditional genres. In general, I find myself uncomfortable with labels, as those often only reinforce a misguided preconception or stereotype about the art. Often classification closes down part of the creative interpretation. I don’t like boundaries. I’d rather let the work speak for itself. Remove the baggage of category, and the photograph deepens and opens up to interpretation.”
Hatleberg, C. [in] Wolf, S. (ed) (2019; 99)

Much like Hatleberg I am not keen on labels or boundaries being placed on my work, and ultimately I like to think my work could be placed in a variety of contexts to be disseminated and viewed. However as my work comments on the virtual world, ultimately the best location of publication is the digital space, which would allow no location or time constraints to visitors, allowing a wider audience to view my work. A webpage would allow a variety of scale and display methods, and would also focus on the temporality of online imagery following the standard social media approach of one long scrolling stream. An alternative option could be a traditional gallery space with images backlit or display via screen to assist the narrative of the digital world, although I could use an empty shop and display in the windows, creating an unmanned exhibition that is visible 24/7. Using a less formal setting would likely attract a more diverse audience outside of the traditional art scene as well as adding connotations to my practice around the changing face of the high street as consumers have migrated to Internet based shopping.

Regardless of format of publication, my main target audience is my generation, to make them critically think about how they consume and use the Internet, and perhaps convince viewers to reconfigure a new reality and realise the darkness of their condition.

References

Figures

Figure 1 Murray, J. (February, 2020) Rejected Still ‘An Authentic Lie’.

Figure 2 Murray, J. (February, 2020) Rejected Still ‘An Authentic Lie’.

Figure 3 Murray, J. (March, 2020) Is this the real life? (from ‘An Authentic Lie?’) [Online] Available from: https://jasmphoto.portfoliobox.net/anauthenticlie [Accessed 23/04/2020]

Figure 4 Murray, J. (February, 2020) Rejected Still ‘An Authentic Lie’.

Bibliography

Edmonds, J. [in] Wolf, S. (ed) (2019) Photowork: Forty Photographers on Process and Practice. 1st edition. pg 70. New York; Aperture.

Frazier, LT.R. [in] Wolf, S. (ed) (2019) Photowork: Forty Photographers on Process and Practice. 1st edition. pg 70. New York; Aperture.

Hatleberg, C. [in] Wolf, S. (ed) (2019) Photowork: Forty Photographers on Process and Practice. 1st edition. pg 70. New York; Aperture.

Van Vliet, M. (2016) Christie’s: Why would you buy a portrait of someone you didn’t know? [Online] Available from: https://www.christies.com/features/18th-century-portraiture-7-key-questions-7225-1.aspx [Accessed 23/04/2020]

Practice & Preparation: A Reflection

PHO702: Critical Research Journal

Reflecting back on the notes I have made, contributions and the feedback I have received about my current practice, has helped me to specifically critical define my position within the area of social commentary and post-internet art, as well as re-evualate what my intentions are, how well my message is being conveyed within my work and question additional meanings within the body of work.

A point of contention this module has been my interpretation of Barthe’s comment:

“In the Photograph, the power of authentication exceeds the power of representation.”
Barthes, R. (1980; 89)

In week 2 of this module, I stated I don’t believe in authenticity, but I feel it’s relevant to expand on where i stand on representation, recently I’ve been reading from the Photographies Routledge Journal and came across Henning whose comments on digital photographs aligns with my own thoughts. Henning writes:

“For contemporary photography theorists, the problem with paying attention to individual digital photographs is that any single interpretation of an image addresses only the surface manifestation, not the code or the data concealed beneath. The algorithm is increasingly understood as the reality of an image whose visual appearance is no longer its principal or most salient characteristic. The end of the single and singular image seems to announce the irrelevance of approaches that treat the image as representation as well as of practices of close reading.”
Henning, M. (2018; 134)

Whilst I consider representation valid I do agree with Henning that representation is almost close to irrelevance in the viewing of one image alone, as contextually in most cases you need accompanying images (and text), to assist the narrative of representation being depicted within. For example whilst Ingrid Pollard’s series Pastoral Interlude (1988) boosts a very strong message around representation, it lessens if you remove the context of text or other images within the series. Without the narrative and context behind it, Figure 1 just becomes a portrait of a black woman sitting in the countryside.

**Figure 1** Pollard, I. (1988) *from the series “Pastoral Interlude”*

In regards to my current practice the critical feedback I have received has been helpful in rethinking and challenging my intent. For example initially I was creating imagery that was simply of the dolls against a gradient background, before subsequently merging with a location scene, effectively a double exposure. However, I found the idea of creating a large series using this method would make it visually overwhelming and lose it’s impact. Feedback I received when I mentioned this sense of loss of impact aligned with my own views and my mentions of an alternative visual approach of using glitchy backgrounds instead to convey my message was positive. Further along in the project it became clear that my images were becoming too repetitive, due to limitations I had encountered with lack of ability to source new props and clothing, incidentally by this time the coronavirus outbreak, which had forced me to re-think within restrictions to do with sourcing props, had arrived fully at our shores. This allowed me a new additional avenue and message of intent to my work, as social media usage changed as social distancing orders came into play and the sense of ‘authenticity’ gained new meanings of whether the individuals themselves had changed behaviour or were persisting with the narrative of the perfect relationship.

**Figure 2** Schmid, J. (2011) Page Spread from Book: *Other People’s Photographs:* *Self*

Major influences to my current practice have tended be from modern contemporary artists of my own generation, active during the era of Instagram and post-internet landscape. However, despite holding similar viewpoints commenting on the modern phenomena of Social Media with the likes of Ulman, Soda, MacLean etc., aesthetically my approach is very different and more dystopian. Arguably practitioners like Ulman fit closest to emulating the vernacular of the stereotypical selfie, one only has to look at Joachim Schmid’s (Figure 2) collection of found photographs Other People’s Photographs, specifically his series Self (2011) to see the repetition in vernacular aesthetic of tropes of what makes a selfie. Batchen in Observing by Watching discussed Schmid’s series with a critical commentary on his series Self and writes: “Another frequent image appearing on Flickr is the self-portrait made with camera in hand, arm outstretched, a type of photograph made possible only with the advent of digital cameras. Schmid’s book on this genre implies that there are many more young photographers doing this than those over thirty, and more women than men.” (Batchen, G. 2013 [in] Wells, L. (ed) 2019; 343)

**Figure 3** Rejlander, O. (1857) *Two Ways of Life*

However I have also been influenced by 18th century portraiture, in that the likes of Gainsboroug manipulated the truth to please clients producing an aesthetic lie of stereotypical beauty on the identity of the sitter. Even early photography was not devoid of this manipulated phenomena, Oscar Rejlander comes to the forefront of my mind when it comes to manipulating the literal representation of reality of his sitters.

Positioning Practice

**Figure 4** Ulman, A. (2014) *Instagram Overview of ‘Excellences & Perfections’*

A practitioner who interests and regularly informs my practice is Amalia Ulman. In a Interview with Kaleidoscope on her project Excellences and Perfections she describes her intent as bringing “… fiction to a platform that has been designed for supposedly “authentic“ behavior, interactions and content. The intention was to prove how easy an audience can be manipulated through the use of mainstream archetypes and characters they’ve seen before.” (Ulman, A. 2014) She mentions that all her images were produced in advance, and curated before uploading with complimenting found material “..for which I would use the same Instagram filter as the ones taken by myself, to create an illusion of continuity.” (Ulman, A. 2014)

I agree that both her technique worked in creating a flowing series and her intent was achieved as she fooled her audience with her mockery on authenticity and on archetypal stereotypes of young women. This has influenced my development of my practice, as Ulman’s clear intentions of what she set out to achieve initially is an influence and I now aim to have a clear intent in mind on what message I want to convey before I start a series.

References

Figures

Figure 1 Pollard, I. (1988) from the series “Pastoral Interlude” [Online] Available from: https://media.vam.ac.uk/media/thira/collection_images/2006AT/2006AT6030_jpg_ds.jpg [Accessed 12/04/2020]

Figure 2 Schmid, J. (2011) Page Spread from Book: Other People’s Photographs: Self. [Online] Available from: https://otherpeoplesphotographs.wordpress.com/self/ [Accessed 13/04/2020]

Figure 3 Rejlander, O. (1857) Two Ways of Life. [Online] Available from: https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/294822 [Accessed 14/04/2020]

Figure 4 Ulman, A. (2014) Instagram Overview of ‘Excellences & Perfections’. [Online] Available from: http://thetangential.com/2018/04/17/excellences-perfections/ [Accessed 17/04/2020]

Bibliography

Barthes, R. (1980) Camera Lucida. pg 89. London; Vintage.

Batchen, G. (2013) Observing by Watching: Joachim Schmid and the Art of Exchange. [in] Wells, L. (ed) (2019) The Photography cultures reader: representation, agency and identity. pg 343. London; Routledge.

Henning, M. (2018) IMAGE FLOW, Photography on tap [in] photographies, 11:2-3, pg 134. Routledge. [Online] Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/17540763.2018.1445011 [Accessed 11/04/2020]

Gavin, F. & Ulman, A. (2014) Kaleidoscope: Amalia Ulman Interview. Issue 23 -Winter 2014/15. [Online] Available from: http://kaleidoscope.media/interview-amalia-ulman/ [Accessed 17/04/2020]

Practice & Preparation: A Post on the Uncanny

PHO702: Critical Research Journal

“While the shift from a passive “spectator” to an interactive “user” seems to offer more agency, this agency is limited to pre-established configurations – peer-to-peer sharing, file transfers, self-curation, posting, posting for selfies and surfing – that conceal backend data analytics such as profiling, personally targeted advertising, sophisticated identification practices, geo-tagging and geo-locating”.
Ravetto-Biagioli, K. (2019; 22-23)

A long running theme to my practice has been around challenging the Uncanny. In the past this has led to me researching in depth into theorists and psychoanalysts theories around the phenomena of the uncanny, referred by some as the unheimlich. One of the first theorists I looked at (other than Freud and Mori who I had mentioned before as theorists fundamental to my current practice) was Jentsch who theorised that “…the effect of the uncanny can easily be achieved when one undertakes to reinterpret some kind of lifeless thing as part of an organic creature, especially in anthropomorphic terms, in a poetic or fantastic way.” (1906) whilst I do agree with elements of Jentsch’s theories around the uncanny, I personally feel Mori is more relevant and visual when discussing the uncanny and the relationship with the automaton.

More recently, in this module I have been looking into more recent theorists, in particular Ravetto-Biagioli’s theories around the Digital Uncanny (2019), which ultimately explores how the rise of the digital has changed and provoked human anxiety, in that it reveals we are closer to machine than we like to think, mentioning projects such as Face2Face as devices which democratize “…the face, facial expressions, and human personalities, allowing anyone to occupy the face and virtual speech of another- as long as there is enough data to generate a simulation. Yet this democratization (or occupation) of the face also presents another problem concerning who or what embodies this aesthetic feeling: if art is a product of calculation (an aggregration of data on past movements and expressions), then how far can we extend an act of aesthetic feeling beyond that of the human relation between experience and thinking?” (Ravetto-Biagioli, K. 2019; 163) Her commentary aligns deeply with my current series produced for this module an Authentic Lie? (2020) which comments on how the rise of the smartphone has introduced the notion of the authentic lie, where reality is distorted, the truth is hard to believe as editing becomes simpler.

Another theorist who discusses the uncanny in relation to the digital age is Suler, his comments very much align with that of Ravetto-Biagioli, but also ties back to the automaton of Jentsch and Mori. He states:

“We project this anxiety into the ambiguously human machine, for it too might harbor a hidden force operating inside it, a force that might be hostile, with evil intentions to harm us, steal our identity, or consume the essence of who we are.”
Suler, J. (2016)

Suler’s theory I feel better associates with my work in the last module Transhumane (2019) as it literally commented on this phenomena, though I suppose the ongoing usage of dolls within my practice hints subtly towards the notion of the other taking over our identities, consuming us, replacing us.

Figure 1 Tinwell, A. & Grimshaw-Aagaard, M. (2009) Bridging the Uncanny: An impossible traverse?

Looking at the theory behind The Uncanny Wall (2011), which is arguably the antithesis of the Uncanny Valley theory, in that Tinwell et al, consider those made from the image of humans yet are not, can never ascend to being accepted as full human ever with a barrier obscuring any further progression, they write:

“The Uncanny Valley holds out some hope for a traversal to the other side in achieving believable realism, comparable to that of a human. However, the Uncanny Wall concept works against such aspiration. Similar to the outcomes of myths, fables and legends of ancient times and modern day stories, characters created by man (such as Frankenstein or Pinocchio) will always be regarded as lesser than those created by gods.”
Tinwell, A. et al (2011)

Personally I’m not sure I agree with this theory in that I consider the Valley as a metaphor of the very real fear we humans project when we see something in our likeness become close to human. On the subject of the Uncanny Valley Saygin et al’s paper “The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions.” (2011) discusses the potential reasoning behind this notion of the uncanny valley assigning it as a behavioural response when something doesn’t behave in the way we anticipate, to be precise they write:

“Here we hypothesized that the uncanny valley may, at least partially, be caused by the violation of the brain’s predictions: When an agent looks like a human, based on a lifetime of experience, the brain generates a prediction that this appearance will be associated with a particular kind of behaviour (e.g. movement kinematics). When the behaviour of the agent violates the predicton, an error is generated…”
Saygin, A.P. et al (2011; 414-415)

Figure 2 Looser, C.E. & Wheatley, T. (2010) The Tipping Point of Animacy: How, When, and Where We Perceive Life in a Face

Saygin et al are not alone in their thoughts behind what causes the sensation of the uncanny valley, in 2010 Looser and Wheatley wrote a paper that explored the tipping point of animacy, the conclusions they made after completing a series of experiments aligns with the theories and also Saygins comments, they suggest “…that this hyperacuity in perceiving meaning in subtle facial cues extends to the perceptual inference of animacy. It may be evolutionarily advantageous to overimpute animacy (better to have a false alarm regarding a rock than to miss a predator)…” (Looser, C.E. & Wheatley, T. 2010; 1860)

References

Figures

Figure 1 Tinwell, A. & Grimshaw-Aagaard, M. (2009) Bridging the Uncanny: An impossible traverse? [Online] Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-Uncanny-Wall_fig2_30502965 [Accessed 04/04/2020]

Figure 2 Looser, C.E. & Wheatley, T. (2010) The Tipping Point of Animacy: How, When, and Where We Perceive Life in a Face. [Online] Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti9o_HDAXwk [Accessed 06/04/2020]

Bibliography

Crist, C. (2018) WIRED: Use Science (Not Surgery) to Create Your Best Selfie. [Online] Available from: https://www.wired.com/story/use-science-not-surgery-to-create-your-best-selfie/ [Accessed 05/04/2020]

Freud, S. (1919) Uncanny. [Online] Available from: https://web.mit.edu/allanmc/www/freud1.pdf and http://courses.washington.edu/freudlit/Uncanny.Notes.html [Accessed 04/04/2020]

Jentsch, E. (1906) On the Psychology of the Uncanny. [Online] Available from: http://www.art3idea.psu.edu/locus/Jentsch_uncanny.pdf [Accessed 04/04/2020]

Lay, S. (2015) The Guardian Opinion: Uncanny valley: why we find human-like robots and dolls so creepy. [Online] Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/13/robots-human-uncanny-valley [Accessed 04/04/2020]

Looser, C.E. & Wheatley, T. (2010) Psychological Science 2010 21: 1854. “The Tipping Point of Animacy: How, When, and Where We Perceive Life in a Face.” [Online] Available from: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/21/12/1854 [Accessed 06/04/2020]

Middleton, N. (2005) Photography & The Uncanny. [Online] Available from: http://www.nicholasmiddleton.co.uk/thesis/thesis4.html [Accessed 06/04/2020]

Mori, M. MacDorman, K.F. Kageki, N. (2012 | 1970) 不気味の谷 The Uncanny Valley. [Online] Available from: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6213238 [Accessed 04/04/2020]

Ravetto-Biagioli, K. (2016) [in] Screen 57:1 (Spring 2016) “The digital uncanny and ghost effects.” [Online] Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/hjw002 or https://www.academia.edu/24324567/Digital_Uncanny_and_Ghost_Effects [Accessed 04/04/2020]

Ravetto-Biagioli, K. (2019) Digital Uncanny. pg 22-23 & 163. New York; Oxford University Press.

Saygin, A.P., Chaminade, T., Ishiguro, H., Driver, J. & Frith, C. (2011) Scan (2012) 7, pg 413-422. “The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions.” [Online] Available from: https://academic.oup.com/scan/article-abstract/7/4/413/1738009/ [Accessed 05/04/2020]

Suler, J. (2016) International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies: Vol 13, Issue 4. pg 374-379. “The Uncanny in the Digital Age.” [Online] Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/aps.1479 [Accessed 04/04/2020]

Tinwell, A., Grimshaw-Aagaard, M. & Williams, A. (2011) Int. J. of Arts and Technology. 4. 326 – 341. “The Uncanny Wall.” [Online] Available from: https://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJART.2011.041485 and https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0d77/b1b118c1fb3d4f82b5dc15a145ab24d2e24f.pdf [Accessed 04/04/2020]

Wang, Y. & Quadflieg, S. (2015) Scan (2015) 10, 1515-1524. “In our own image? Emotional and neural processing differences when observing human-human vs human-robot interactions.” [Online] Available from: https://academic.oup.com/scan/article-abstract/10/11/1515/1643444/ [Accessed 07/04/2020]

Week 10: Peer Review Video Presentations – WIP & Reflection

PHO702: Critical Research Journal, PHO702: Video Presentation and Peer Review

Work in Progress

**Figure 1** Murray, J. (2020) *WIP An Authentic Lie Showreel GIF*

As I’ve made significant changes to my project this past week, by adding the narrative of post-covid images. I thought I would upload them to my CRJ as a whole series in the form of a showreel gif to give a sense of an idea to the sequence of my project(the quality/colour availability is obviously better on the stills).

The aesthetical visual approach to my current Work in Progress has developed in directions previously unplanned due to the arrival of the restrictions of the Coronavirus outbreak. I felt that some images were becoming repetitive, so I chose to embrace the situation and develop my images to comment on the ongoing situation and how people are or even are not, adapting themselves.

Due to the now widespread pandemic the message and context behind my work has changed, in that the work not only comments on how the smart phone has created the concept of the authentic lie, but also on how currently, the only way we can explore and visit locations is virtually via the internet or traditional media such as books.

Reflections on Feedback

I found the feedback I received from my peers to my video presentation insightful, particularly regarding presenting my work, and cultural references. Otherwise the feedback has been useful and largely reinforces that my practice is achieving my intended outcomes, contextualisation and visual references.

**Figure 2** Falmouth Flexible Forums (2020) *Video Presentation Feedback*

So how will I develop my Critical Review from this? From the feedback given, in particular the mention from a peer of the artist Signe Pierce, it has become clear to me that when it comes to developing my Critical Review of Practice that I will add and change the practitioners I discuss to those more closely tied to social commentary around the topic of the internet and social media, and in the webinar it was advised that I should expand somewhat on the topic of the uncanny, which incidentally was already in my thoughts as I’m currently reading Digital Uncanny (2019), however I have yet to decide which part I wish to reference to. Overall the most important feedback I received was being reminded to make sure everything I am referencing to ties back into my practice.

References

Figures

Figure 1 Murray, J. (2020) WIP An Authentic Lie Showreel GIF

Figure 2 Falmouth Flexible Forums (2020) Video Presentation Feedback

Bibliography

Ravetto-Biagioli, K. (2019) Digital Uncanny. New York; Oxford University Press.

Ravetto-Biagioli, K. (2016) [in] Screen 57:1 (Spring 2016) The digital uncanny and ghost effects. [Online] Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/screen/hjw002 or https://www.academia.edu/24324567/Digital_Uncanny_and_Ghost_Effects [Accessed 11/03/2020]

Week 10: Peer Review Video Presentations – Further Research

PHO702: Critical Research Journal

Scarlett Shaney

“Excerpts from In Real Life, a zine and interactive series of webpages exploring female identity online and the way women represent and perform femininity in our 21st century internet culture.”
Shaney, S. (2015)

**Figure 1** Shaney, S. (2015) *In Real Life.*

At the end of last week I came across of Scarlett Shaney’s In Real Life (2015) a body of work which explores the juxtaposition and “…performative nature of social media, and how women in particular use this to experiment, play and curate how they are seen.” (Shaney, S. 2015). Her work like Baritone uses frames from instagram to border around images, however aesthetically her work is closer to Molly Soda or Signe Pierce, with references to early internet, Y2K and vapourwave aesthetics assisting the narrative of the performative online notion of self. Her method of display being a zine, aligns with Soda’s practice of small zine runs, however I would say the layout here feels more reminiscent of the works of Petra Collins and Arvida Byström.

Curated by Girls

I actually found Scarlett Shaney’s work on the Curated by Girls website which describes itself as “…a platform that promotes diversity & equality through the works of emerging and established talents from around the world, with a strong focus on female-identifying creators.” (Curated by Girls, 2016-). The site appears to showcase quite a few photographers and artists, most are recent graduates or current students, who have projects or series on social commentary around the internet and social media and the impact on identity and aesthetics.

Jasmine De Silva

**Figure 2** De Silva, J. (2018) *How to Build Your Human*

De Silva’s How to Build Your Human (2018) resonated with me in regards to her intent, she writes:

“Constructed of a hand-made hyperreal world, expressing the human obsession and desire to be perfect through a limitless cycle of physical reconstructions of the self.“
De Silva, J. (2018)

This intent is not dissimilar to topics I have previously discussed in the series Life in Plastic (2014) and Transhumane (2019), yet visually the outcomes are very different and whilst De Silva incorporates doll body parts, the focus remains on the very human female models who are repeatedly changed and remade through wig changes, makeup changes, and cut out features that dangle in front of them. De Silva’s work feels reminiscent of Alex Prager’s practice in the sense of retro nostalgia.

Ewa Doroszenko

“While the Internet can seem like a place disconnected from our physical worlds, much of the activity that occurs there deeply affects how we feel about things outside of it. Modern technology very often makes women dissatisfied with what they see in the mirror.”
Doroszenko, E. (2018)

**Figure 3** Doroszenko, E. (2018-) *The Body Editor*

Doroszenko’s The Body Editor (2018) also resonated with me in that her work questions the reality portrayed on the internet, however where I am questioning the reality of the location and the notion of relationships, Doroszenko is commenting on the mass adoption of beauty apps which ultimately led to dissatisfaction of the self visually as opposed to my intent where I am looking at the dissatisfaction of relationships, friendships- a sense of the authentic lie.

Sylvia Rybak

**Figure 4** Rybak, S. (2017) *Untitled*

Rybak’s images deconstruct and separate elements of the body, hands, eyes, mouth, hair from one another objectifying and subjecting the anonymous model in her images, the outcomes are interesting however I am not entirely sure I agree that Rybak’s images truly show the following:

I tend to reduce the role of the humans in my images to purely aesthetic and playfully arrange along with other objects in a studio. In my most recent series, I explored the concept of online personalities and the obsession to create a better, online version of oneself.“
Rybak, S. (2017)

If anything I would say her work is more surreal in nature than commenting on online personalities.

Emily Langford

**Figure 5** Langford, E. (2018) *Untitled*

Langford, better known as Vinyl Mannequin states her practice is “…an embodiment of the Uncanny Valley. I aim to create imagery which at first glance appears to be a vision of a kitsch/girly aesthetic, but once the image is examined and taken in by viewers, it becomes an unsettling and sometimes morbid depiction of reality. I also thoroughly enjoy composing my own miniature ‘film sets’ where my surreal shoots take place.” (Langford, E. 2018) Her work to me is very reminiscent of Rachel MacLean’s, in the kitsch aesthetic and topics covered, but also in that Langford often uses self-portraiture as a vehicle to create an assist her narrative of the surreal uncanny. Her work also reminds me of Sherman’s Film Stills in that the subjects Langford tackles are ultimately the cliché, the stereotype of a persona albeit one on the internet as opposed to the cinematic world.

Amber Drew Sparrey

**Figure 6** Drew, A. (2018) *Still from Eternal Beauty, Internal Hate*

Amber Drew Sparrey, known as her alter ego Ambie Drew, explores fabricated femininity, gender and identity in the digital age. Her work depicts kitsch stereotypical feminine beauty commonly adopting the colour palette of soft pastel pinks. Again like Langford her work to me draws strong parallels with MacLean’s practice, in the representation of the kitsch aesthetics that run throughout the piece. She writes on her website that Eternal Beauty, Internal Hate (2018) is about repeating attempts to become beautiful and states: “The more Ambie Drew tries to become externally beautiful and desirable through beauty products and materialistic objects, the more she has become loathing, objectifying and critical of herself internally. There are moments when she enjoys it, for example when she gets a new lipstick or wig. But then she stares at herself until she hates it. And then the process starts again.” (Drew, A. 2018)

References

Figures

Figure 1 Shaney, S. (2015) In Real Life. [Online] Available from: http://www.scarlettshaney.com/in-real-life#13 [Accessed 30/03/2020]

Figure 2 De Silva, J. (2018) How to Build Your Human. [Online] Available from: http://www.curatedbygirls.com/jasmine-de-silva.html [Accessed 01/04/2020]

Figure 3 Doroszenko, E. (2018-) The Body Editor. [Online] Available from: http://ewa-doroszenko.com/bodyeditor/ [Accessed 02/04/2020]

Figure 4 Rybak, S. (2017) Untitled. [Online] Available from: http://www.curatedbygirls.com/sylvia-rybak.html [Accessed 02/04/2020]

Figure 5 Langford, E. (2018) Untitled. [Online] Available from: http://www.curatedbygirls.com/emily-langford.html [Accessed 02/04/2020]

Figure 6 Drew, A. (2018) Still from Eternal Beauty, Internal Hate. [Online] Available from: https://ambiedrew.com/eternal-beauty-internal-hate/ and http://www.curatedbygirls.com/ambie-drew.html [Accessed 02/04/2020]

Bibliography

Curated by Girls (2016-) About. [Online] Available from: http://www.curatedbygirls.com/about.html [Accessed 29/03/2020]

De Silva, J. (2018) How to Build Your Human. [Online] Available from: http://www.curatedbygirls.com/jasmine-de-silva.html and http://www.jasminedesilva.com/articles [Accessed 01/04/2020]

Doroszenko, E. (2018-) The Body Editor. [Online] Available from: http://www.curatedbygirls.com/ewa-doroszenko.html [Accessed 02/04/2020]

Drew, A. (2018) Still from Eternal Beauty, Internal Hate. [Online] Available from: https://ambiedrew.com/eternal-beauty-internal-hate/ and http://www.curatedbygirls.com/ambie-drew.html [Accessed 02/04/2020]

Langford, E. (2018) Untitled. [Online] Available from: http://www.curatedbygirls.com/emily-langford.html [Accessed 02/04/2020]

Rybak, S. (2017) Untitled. [Online] Available from: http://www.curatedbygirls.com/sylvia-rybak.html and http://www.sylviarybak.com/ [Accessed 02/04/2020]

Shaney, S. (2015) In Real Life. [Online] Available from: http://www.scarlettshaney.com/in-real-life#13 [Accessed 30/03/2020]

Shaney, S. (2015) Superhero Magazine: Issue 7 The Avatar Gen. IRL/URL Culture. [Online] Available from: http://superheromag.com/avatar_gen/irlurl-culture/ [Accessed 01/04/2020]

Week 10: Peer Review Video Presentations – Research

PHO702: Critical Research Journal

“If in the early days, we “surfed” the internet, today we are submerged in it.”
Ables, K. (2019)

Some feedback I received in regards to my Video Presentation, reminded me that I hadn’t gotten around to discussing certain practitioners I had mentioned in passing as having looked at previously. So this post will be a recap and refresher on some artists I had looked at whilst on the BA top up last year and from Positions and Practice.

Arvida Byström

**Figure 1** Byström, A. (2016) *Me and You.*

Byström’s practice is similar to that of Amalia Ulman, in that she creates work which comments and explores femininity, identity and gender norms, with a particular leaning to questioning sexualisation of the female form. Byström like Ulman mainly publishes and distributes her work through a variety of digital platforms, like Instagram and Tumblr, however she also collaborates with international magazines, fashion brands and advertising. An example of this cross over between the fine art and the commercial within her practice can be seen in Byström’s images for Me And You (2016), with Byström herself posing as the model, wearing the campaign clothes whilst taking self-portraiture with a selfie stick. In 2018 she wrote about her work Inflated Fiction and her overall practice and stated:

“…my feminine aesthetics are always seen as only being about sex, which is far from the truth. Sex is an important subject, but it does my art a disservice to say that it’s largely about sex. It’s more a case of wanting to show that how sex is portrayed usually has very little to do with the reality.”
Byström, A. (2018)

This comment on portrayals not necessarily depicting or aligning with the reality of a scenario (in this case sex) aligns with my intent with an Authentic Lie? I want people to question and examine the reality of the relationship depicted in the selfies we all see and consume on social media, that the cliché portrayals are usually far from reality and that it’s not always greener over the fence.

Petra Collins

“The selfie, especially, has revolutionised the way that we are able to represent ourselves”
Collins, P. (2016)

**Figure 2** Collins, P. (2013-) *Selfie (Untitled pdf-14).*

Collins is another example of a practitioner who incorporates and explores the notions of social media lifestyles and identity, examining today’s celebrity driven culture through an outsider’s perspective of dreamy film portrayals of youth, sexuality and femininity. As well as being an artist, Collins curates both her own work and the work of the other young female artists through her online gallery platform set up in 2010 called The Ardorous, and she edited Babe a visual encyclopaedia of 29 ‘self-selected’ contemporary female visual artists, an internet community who predominately display their work solely on Instagram, a platform in itself that is an app that allows the user to be a curator and an artist, in charge of their own work. Collins is no stranger to Instagram, like Ulman and Byström she uses it to publish and exhibit her work to a global audience; however Collins in particular has had her issues with the platform, with her account ending up blocked in 2013 due to an image she had posted – a selfportrait of the artist in a bikini with her bikini line hair poking out, something which does not break Instagram’s terms of use. Collins’ work looks atypical snapshots of young women discovering, exploring and displaying their sexuality however if anything is a portrayal of how young women today view and present themselves. Maddie Crum for the Huffington Post describes Collins’ Selfie series as:

“…girls peer into their bathroom mirrors, and, simultaneously, into their iPhones, tilted downwards at flattering angles. Toothpaste, lotions and stained mirrors frame the selfie-taking girls at the center of her images – the viewer is able to see not only the refined, filtered (or #nofilter-ed) public-facing image, and also the reality that surrounds it.”
Crum, M. (2015)

Collins work echoes my work as we both explore social media lifestyles and identity, and contrast the stereotypical celebrity driven social media ‘influencer’ culture. Like Collins my work provides a critical mirror to the images consumed on Instagram and similar platforms, but where Collins uses herself and other real women to explore and display their sexuality, I have used lifelike realistic dolls to simulate how young women (and more recently men) present themselves and behave on social media.

Signe Pierce

**Figure 3** Pierce, S. (2019) *DIGITAL STREAMS OF AN UPLOADABLE CONSCIOUSNESS*

In the last module I focused on looking in particular at Signe Pierce, and at the time mentioned how her work borders an intersection between art and technology through her usage of high contrast vibrant lighting, applied to the mundane everyday world, creating a hyper-realistic aesthetic, that is also oversaturated and blatantly artificial. Her work differs from my own in that she focuses her commentary on exploring and questioning the male gaze via her own self-portrayals, displaying hyper-feminine and hypersexual archetypes of women as objects, as means of a social experiment, manipulating realities to make viewers think about the actual reality of the image vs the presented ‘artificial’ reality. Pierce’s method of presentation in exhibitions such as:

Digital Streams of an Uploadable Consciousness : Stories 2016-2019(2019), which showcases videos she had original produced for Snapchat and Instagram using projections and LCD screens to reformat and recontextualise her online videos within a gallery setting, and arguably question how long female consumers spend taking selfies before finding an image they are happy with.

and

**Figure 4** Pierce, S. (2018) *Metamirrorism*

Metamirrorism (2018), where she uses cameras, projections and mirrors as a means of playing with perception and reality, incorporating the viewer into the installation as subject, becoming a part of the distortions.

Both works have very different approaches to methods of display and interaction, however both have made me question how I far I could push my own work in become more interactive and allow viewer participation. Pierce herself describes her work as playing with perception and writes:

“It was like, “I’m going to photograph myself playing up this hypersexualized femme.” I got my hair done, I got my nails done, I got a tan. I did the things that a playmate would do in preparation for a big shoot, but I shot myself in this warped mirror to reflect my own identity and literalized the warped elements of perception that play into ideas of what is sexy, feminine, gender, and identity.”
Pierce, S. (2019)

Barbara Kruger

**Figure 5** Kruger, B. (1997) Untitled (The future belongs to those who can see it).

Kruger has been working since the 1980s as a conceptual and visual artist. She produced work primarily through the use of appropriated found images, creating black-and-white photographs which mimic the stylisation of corporate advertising used in retail stores, but instead of stereotypical conventional advertising slogans. Kruger overlays her own blunt, one-liner slogans in white-on-red text. Her work often includes pronouns such as “you”, “your”, “I”, “we”, and “they”, ambiguously questioning sexuality, gender, identity and power. The combination of images and slogans parody not just advertisers and the objects being advertised, but also satirise the people who purchase the products.

“What Kruger accomplished in melding art and graphic design – indeed art as graphic design – made art more populist, enabling a wide audience to consume social and cultural dynamics that in other at might be more inaccessible.”
Heller, S. (1999)

Unlike the other artists working in the social commentary genre of contemporary photography, Kruger’s works predominately examine stereotypes, through the vehicle and behaviours of consumerism selling an idea to the viewer. Kruger distributes and publishes her work through physical media (primarily due to the fact the majority of her practice pre-dates the rise of the internet) from silk screen prints, sitespecific installations, to video and audio work. Kruger’s work is most similar in practice to Molly Soda as both utilise appropriation as a vehicle to share their message.

Barbara Kruger also has produced works which send a similar message to my own, questioning the future and asking her viewers to be reflective on how they consume the world around them. Kruger pre-dates the digital era, both photographically and in how her work has been consumed. Having worked for a fashion magazine publisher, Kruger gained inside knowledge of the fashion and beauty industries which gave her the ability to critically appraise how it manipulates women and promotes false realities. Kruger’s work simultaneously satirises stereotypical fashion advertisements, ruthlessly parodying both the products and people who buy them.

References

Figures

Figure 1 Byström, A. (2016) Me and You. [Online] Available from: http://obsessivecollectors.com/arvidabystorm-
me-and-you [Accessed 01/04/2020]

Figure 2 Collins, P. (2013-) Selfie (Untitled pdf-14). [Online] Available from:
http://www.petracollins.com/selfie/ [Accessed 31/03/2020]

Figure 3 Pierce, S. (2019) DIGITAL STREAMS OF AN UPLOADABLE CONSCIOUSNESS. [Online] Available from: https://www.artrabbit.com/events/signe-pierce-digital-streams-of-an-uploadable-consciousness [Accessed 01/04/2020]

Figure 4 Pierce, S. (2018) Metamirrorism. [Online] Available from: h ttp://www.annkakultys.com/timeout-26-march-2018/ [Accessed 01/04/2020]

Figure 5 Kruger, B. (1997) Untitled (The future belongs to those who can see it). [Online]. Available from: https://www.artsy.net/artwork/barbara-kruger-untitled-the-future-belongs-to-those-who-can-see-it [Accessed 01/04/2020]

Bibliography

Ables, K. (2019) Artsy: The Rise and Fall of Internet Art Communities.[Online] Available from: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-rise-fall-internet-art-communities [Accessed 30/03/2020]

Ables, K. (2019) Artsy: Tumblr Helped a Generation of LGBTQ+ Artists Come of Age. [Online] Available from: https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-tumblr-helped-generation-lgbtq-artists-age [Accessed 31/03/2020]

Byström, A. (2018) Inflated Fiction. [Online] Available from:
https://www.fotografiska.com/sto/en/news/arvida-bystrom-inflated-fiction/ [Accessed 01/04/2020]

Collins, P. (2016) Dazed 100. [Online] Available from:
http://www.dazeddigital.com/projects/article/29303/1/petra-collins [Accessed 31/03/2020]

Crum, M. (2015) Huffington Post: Meet The Young Feminist Photographer Who Uses Selfies As Her Weapon. [Online] Available from: https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/23/petra-collinsphoto-
book_n_7588600.html [Accessed 31/03/2020]

Finney, A. (2018) INDIE: WE ASKED YOUNG PEOPLE WHAT THEY THOUGHT OF NEW FEMINIST EXHIBITION “VIRTUAL NORMALITY”. [Online] Available from: https://indie-mag.com/2018/02/virtual-normality-exhibition [Accessed 01/04/2020]

Kruger,B. Indiana, G. Goldstein, A. Deutsche, R. Heller, S. Squiers, C. Dieckmann, K. & Tillman, L. (1999) Thinking of you,
Barbara Kruger. (Heller, S. Barbara Kruger, Graphic Designer?) The Los Angeles; MOCA; MIT Press.

Moravec, L. (2018) Virtual Normality: Women Net Artists 2.0 [Online] Available from: https://watchfineartslondon.wordpress.com/2018/02/28/virtual-normality-women-net-artists-2-0/ [Accessed 1/04/2020]

Pierce, S. [in] Pann, L. (2019) Musée Magazine: A Dangerous Walk: Interview with Signe Pierce. [Online] Available from: https://museemagazine.com/features/2019/4/24/a-dangerous-walk-interview-with-signe-pierce [Accessed 1/04/2020]

Week 9: Enter the Academy – Reflection, A Brief Summary

PHO702: Critical Research Journal

How are different practitioners ‘curated’ together?

This question has been something I’ve been thinking about heavily this week and my conclusion is that it varies and depends on the rationale behind curating a group exhibition, in the past I’ve been to curated group exhibitions where the selection of work was sorted by:

The collector ex) Tate Modern: Sir Elton John’s The Radical Eye (2016)
Time Period ex) The Photographers Gallery: Feminist Avant–Garde of the 1970s (2016)
Location ex) The Photographers Gallery: Shot in Soho (2019)
Genre ex) The Photographers Gallery: Feast for the Eyes (2019)
Gender ex) RPS 100 Heroines: Representation on the line (2019)
Student ex) Falmouth Flexible: Landings (2017-)

Admittedly the following bullet points probably do not showcase the entire span of options when it comes to curating and selecting for a group exhibition, it does however remind me that group exhibitions are not reliant on the work being aesthetically or genre specific, to work together…

Curatorial Intentions and Rationales

**Figure 1** Designtransfer (2017) *Post-Internet Show*

Although the following exhibition is for the Berlin University of Arts alumni, student and teachers, my practice would fit within the subject parameters of the exhibition itself. They state the intentions as means to: “…share the desire to critically analyse and react to the internet as a mass medium.” (Designtransfer, 2017) Like my own practice the works shown in this exhibition provides social commentary on the internet, and the effects on societies representation and sense of identity, and in the case of Sonnenberg (Figure 2) both our works refer to the notion of the Uncanny Valley.

Sonnenberg, C. (2017) *The Importance of Eyebrows*

If my practice was curated into a new group exhibition/themed journal/ book chapter etc, other practitioners would likely be those who fall under the category of social commentary, the uncanny or post internet, or under the wider umbrella of representation and identity (as was the case with Unsocial Media_ (2019) which ended up being curated into RPS 100 Heroines: Representation on the Line). My work could also be situated within the category of student/graduate (and again my BA series Unsocial Media_ (2019) was published in the publication Photograd alongside other graduate work).

In regards to fellow practitioners the likes of Ambar Navarro, Amalia Ulman, Molly Soda, Petra Collins, Rachel MacLean, Signe Pierce handle similiar topics of social commentary, specifically around social media and the rise of the curated self, but via very different aesthetical approaches and messages in comparison to my own practice which perhaps at times angles more towards a dystopian future of the transhuman. MacLean and Soda’s inclusion of video practice in their work has lead me to question and experiment in previous modules cinemagraphic imagery as a vehicle to convey and assist my message.

Regardless of the format of publication, my main target audience is my own generation, predominately to make them critically think about how they consume and use the Internet and perhaps convince the viewers to reconfigure a new reality and realise the darkness of their condition. I want my audience to respond in as many ways as possible be it direct feedback, personal reflection, triggering of emotional memories and internal dialogues, reinforcement of the transient nature of their online presence, perhaps reconnecting themselves with the physicality of traditional ‘hardware’ photo albums instead of the false ‘software’ nature of images on the Internet, the real versus the unreal.

As my work comments on the virtual world, arguably the best location of publication is the digital space which would mean there are no location or time constraints to visitors beyond date of launch (and domain expiration), allowing a wider audience the ability to view my work and participate. Using a webpage allows scale and display methods to have more variety, as the size would be solely dependent on a viewer’s device. A webpage in itself focus on the temporality of imagery and could follow the standard social media style approach of one long scrolling stream. This approach could also be ported to the offline interactive PDF edition forcing viewers to scroll to view.

Another venue could be the traditional gallery space with images being either backlit or displayed via a screen to assist the narrative of the digital world, however I could use an empty shop unit, and display in the windows, meaning the exhibition would not need to be manned and would be visible to visitors 24/7. By not using a formal setting such as “White Cube” it means it is likely to gain an audience from beyond the traditional art scene, as well as benefiting from less formality to comply with the black frame aesthetic commonly found in mainstream galleries. Using retail space has added connotations reflecting the changing face of the high street as consumers migrate to Internet shopping.

References

Figures

Figure 1 Designtransfer (2017) Post-Internet Show. [Online] Available from: http://www.designtransfer.udk-berlin.de/en/projekt/post-internet-show/ [Accessed 25/03/2020]

Figure 2 Sonnenberg, C. (2017) The Importance of Eyebrows. [Online] Available from: http://www.designtransfer.udk-berlin.de/en/projekt/post-internet-show/ and http://catharinasonnenberg.com/the-importance-of-eyebrows.html [Accessed 25/03/2020]

Bibliography

Designtransfer (2017) Post-Internet Show. [Online] Available from: http://www.designtransfer.udk-berlin.de/en/projekt/post-internet-show/ and http://www.designtransfer.udk-berlin.de/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/PM-Post_Internet_Show.pdf [Accessed 25/03/2020]

Falmouth Flexible (2017-) Landings. [Online] Available from: https://landings.space/landings19.html [Accessed 25/03/2020]

Photograd (2019) PGZ2019. [Online] Available from: https://www.photograd.co.uk/shop/pre-order-the-printed-edition-of-pgz2019 [Accessed 26/03/2020]

RPS 100 Heroines (2019) Representation on the Line I, II, III & IV. [Online] Available from: https://www.artrabbit.com/events/unframing-our-identities-representation-on-the-line-iii [Accessed 25/03/2020]

Tate Modern (2016) Press Release. The Radical Eye: Modernist Photography from the Sir Elton John Collection. [Online] Available from: https://www.tate.org.uk/press/press-releases/radical-eye-modernist-photography-sir-elton-john-collection [Accessed 25/03/2020]

The Photographers Gallery (2016) Feminist Avant-Garde of the 1970s: Works from the Verbund Collection. [Online] Available from: https://thephotographersgallery.org.uk/whats-on/past-exhibitions/feminist-avant-garde [Accessed 25/03/2020]

The Photographers Gallery (2019) Shot in Soho. [Online] Available from: https://thephotographersgallery.org.uk/whats-on/exhibition/shot-soho [Accessed 25/03/2020]

The Photographers Gallery (2019) Feast for the Eyes. The Story of Food in Photography. [Online] Available from: https://thephotographersgallery.org.uk/whats-on/exhibition/feast-eyes-story-food-photography [Accessed 25/03/2020]

Week 9: Enter the Academy – Research

PHO702: Critical Research Journal

The Online Self, Relationships And Contemporary Art Photography?

“Almost one-third of those surveyed stated they often exaggerate their statuses and posts on social media, including their relationships.”
Arnold, A. (2018)

The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically forms as part of the visual lexicon, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their aesthetical beauty or their sensationalist emotional power. So what is good art? Who decides? The creator, the artist? The art critic? The art historian? The gallery curator? Or is it as Roland Barthes implies in the Death of the Author purely down to the audience, the consumer? Art is indistinguishable from society in that participants of social media actively participate in the image world in a curated manner, becoming their own personal curator of their own life. Smith summarises the phenomenon:

“People hiding behind a screen. The first thing you do when you wake up is to check social media, and people always put their best moments on there to make people jealous. You never see their true selves, how they’re feeling if they’re depressed. People only post a snippet that makes them look good. It kind of gives an unrealistic view of people’s supposedly perfect lives, which are mostly unattainable.“
Smith, N. (2019)

As I have mentioned in previous posts, this ultimately means that the curated self is based on an authentic lie of perfectionism. Therefore I ultimately disagree with De Zayas comment that “Photography is the plastic verification of a fact.” (De Zayas, M. 1913; 125) as I don’t believe that visual depictions in photography are ever total fact, as you can curate what you want in a frame and what you do not.

The value of the photograph, frequently increases over time, however it is fundamentally down to popularity in consumer’s tastes and this arguably interconnects back to Barthes Death of the Author as worth and meaning over time is solely down to how the consumer reads into the image in question.

So is contemporary art photography different from earlier forms of art photography? I feel this is a really hard question to answer in that contemporary photography itself is hard to define in terms of beginning or end or even what it looks like, and throughout the past few decades the very definition of what contemporary is has changed drastically due to change in tastes, style, culture and the rise of the internet. I think Koslov aptly summarises my views on what makes contemporary photography with the following:

“Regardless, any style of “photography”, whether a snapshot or purposeful creative expression, becomes, at this moment in time, “contemporary photography”.”
Koslov, G. (2015)

References

Bibliography

Arnold, A. (2018) Forbes: Why Millennials Need To Reduce Social Media’s Impact On Their Relationship. [Online] Available from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewarnold/2018/03/21/why-millennials-need-to-reduce-social-medias-impact-on-their-relationship/#26cf9b9e15e6 [Accessed 23/03/2020]

Barthes, R. (1977) Image-Music-Text: ‘The Rhetoric of the Image’ (1964). London; Fontana.

De Zayas, M. (1913) ‘Photography’ [in] Trachtenberg, A. (1980) Classic Essays on Photography. pg 125. New Haven; Leete’s Island Books.

Duggan, M. & Lenhart, A. (2014) Pew Research Center: Internet & Technology. Couples, the Internet, and Social Media. [Online] Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2014/02/11/couples-the-internet-and-social-media/ [Accessed 23/03/2020]

Elliott, J.K. (2020) Global News: Influencers under fire for using coronavirus selfies to win viral fame. [Online] Available from: https://globalnews.ca/news/6488781/logan-paul-coronavirus-influencers/ [Accessed 23/03/2020]

Emery, L.F., Dix, E.L, Le, B., Muise, A. (2014) SAGE Journals: Can You Tell That I’m in a Relationship? Attachment and Relationship Visibility on Facebook. [Online] Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0146167214549944 [Accessed 23/03/2020]

Feinstein, B. A., Hershenberg, R., Bhatia, V., Latack, J. A., Meuwly, N., & Davila, J. (2013). Negative social comparison on Facebook and depressive symptoms: Rumination as a mechanism. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(3), 161–170. [Online] Available from: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033111 [Accessed 23/03/2020]

Koslov, G. (2015) Foto Relevance: What is Contemporary Photography? [Online] Available from: https://fotorelevance.com/what-is-contemporary-photography/#note-1769-28 [Accessed 24/03/2020]

Smith, N. (2019) Havas Group: Ideas. Gen Z talks Social Media. [Online] Available from: https://download.havas.com/posts/gen-z-talks-social-media/ [Accessed 23/03/2020]

Week 8: Responses and Responsibilities – Research

PHO702: Critical Research Journal

Deep Fakes

“Since Adobe launched the first version of Photoshop in 1990, retouching photos for malicious or fraudulent purposes has become a concern. Nowadays, the new AI-based systems are improving at such a meteoric pace that it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish the authentic from the fake in audio and video documents as well.”
Yanes, J. (2018)

When it comes to responses and responsibilities around my practice of social commentary and on authentic lying my thoughts turn to the modern phenomenon of the Deep Fake, which ultimately allows users to create inauthentic content in terms of visuals and sound to narrate a narrative of their choosing. Ultimately this is not entirely a modern phenomenon as Yanes writes the rise of Photoshop began to allow images to be easily manipulated with just a couple of clicks, as opposed to hours in the darkroom.

**Figure 1** Gainsborough, T. (1785) *Mr and Mrs William Hallett (‘The Morning Walk’)*

“How much of the internet is fake? Studies generally suggest that, year after year, less than 60 percent of web traffic is human; some years, according to some researchers, a healthy majority of it is bot.”
Read, M. (2018)

It’s intriguing in itself that we have begun to question how much of the internet is real and how much is curated, as ultimately this concept is a tale as old as time, humans have arguably always portrayed themselves as a curated persona of ideals taken from aspects of the true self, selected for the audience the individual is dealing with, one has only to look at the unreal portrayals found in 18th century portraiture, by artists such as Gainsborough to find idealisation and an aestheticised romantic view of the self and the world around us.

Click Farms

I never tire of looking at videos of Chinese click farms. It's just so surreal to see hundreds of phones playing the same video for the purposes of fake engagment. pic.twitter.com/bHAGLqRqVb
— Matthew Brennan (@mbrennanchina) December 10, 2018

Figure 2 Brennan, M. (2018) Chinese Clickfarm Tweet (Video from: 抖音 User Bailun304335634)

However given how much more connected we all are to the internet today, it is far easier to spot fakery and lies that don’t add up easier than ever before, as well as committing such fakery. A good example are social interactions on the internet that are manipulated using click farms (Figure 2), in the early 2010s this was relatively unheard of and easily went under the radar.

**Figure 3** Kneissl, S. Lackner, M. (2017) *Stop the Algorithm*

Today it’s hard not to know of click farms, or of buying interaction through the vehicle of likes, comments, follows and reposts, that even the art world is commenting on the topic of click farms, with artists such as Tuleubek, Kneissl and Lackner creating installation pieces which directly look and question why click farms exist and attempt to mimic human interaction on the internet.

**Figure 4** Tuleubek, A. (2017) *The Invisible Handjob of the New Economy*

“…this anxiety and intense fusion with their networked devices, people might experience feelings such as a vacation not being real unless it is publicized in the form of ‘vacation porn’ photos on Instagram, and even more, not unless those catchy frames receive many likes and comments of approval.”
Lynch, R. (2016)

Censorship

Engagement on the internet can be as forged now, as the image itself, the notion of reality and the unreal is further blurred and distorted with the evolution of the tech world, that everything and nothing can be pulled into question. Yet despite this blurred line of reality, rules on acceptability from the real world remain in play with censorship of content, in some countries this is more extreme than in others.

**Figure 5** Mattes, E. & F. (2016-) *From the series ‘Abuse Standards Violations’*

These hidden censorship guidelines become more apparent and visible in the series by artist duo Eva and Franco Mattes in Abuse Standards Violations (2016-) which literally depicts corporate guidelines leaked to them on internet content moderation that is printed onto wall-mounted insulation panels. Such moderation is intended to make the internet a safer and more truthful place in comparison to the days of the early internet, yet technology itself pushes the grey lines arguably making it more difficult to moderate reality. Baldacci aptly explains that today:

“The shift of attention is thus all on the afterlife of images, on their ‘swarm circulation, digital dispersion, fractured and flexible temporalities’. Which means that in the digital realm the focus is no more on the ‘original’ image itself (the real thing) but on the conditions of its recurrent circulation (reality) and translation.”
Baldacci, C. (2019)

Hyper-digital

**Figure 6** Galle, T. & Yuyi, J. (2016) *Face Messenger*

Her comments on recurrent circulation brings me to the artist Tom Galle whose work revolves around the hyper-digital internet meme culture with the intention of providing humourous commentary and questions on impact the internet has had, through reinterpreting modern cultural references. In the case of Face Messenger (2016) Galle collaborates with Yuyi to create a series of close ups of faces that have had temporary tattoos applied that look like visual content found on Facebook messenger.

References

Figures

Figure 1 Gainsborough, T. (1785) Mr and Mrs William Hallett (‘The Morning Walk’) [Online] Available from: https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/paintings/thomas-gainsborough-mr-and-mrs-william-hallett-the-morning-walk [Accessed 20/03/2020]

Figure 2 Brennan, M. (2018) Chinese Clickfarm Tweet (Video from: 抖音/Douyin/TikTok User: Bailun304335634) [Online] Available from: https://twitter.com/mbrennanchina/status/1072114511212109824 [Accessed 20/03/2020]

Figure 3 Kneissl, S. Lackner, M. (2017) Stop the Algorithm. [Online] Available from: https://thephotographersgallery.org.uk/whats-on/exhibition/all-i-know-is-whats-on-the-internet [Accessed 20/03/2020]

Figure 4 Tuleubek, A. (2017) The Invisible Handjob of the New Economy. [Online] Available from: https://www.ayatgali.com/the-invisible-handjob-of-the-new-economy/ [Accessed 20/03/2020]

Figure 5 Mattes, E. & F. (2016-) From the series ‘Abuse Standards Violations’. [Online] Available from: http://0100101110101101.org/abuse-standards-violations/ [Accessed 20/03/2020]

Figure 6 Galle, T. & Yuyi, J. (2016) Face Messenger. [Online] Available from: http://tomgalle.online/Face-Messenger [Accessed 20/03/2020]

Bibliography

Baldacci, C. (2019) ‘Recirculation: The Wandering of Digital Images in Post-Internet Art’ [in] Holzhey, C.F.E and Wedemeyer, A. (ed.) (2019) Cultural Inquiry, 15: An Errant Glossary. pg 25-33. Berlin; ICI Berlin [Online]. Available from: https://www.ici-berlin.org/oa/ci-15/baldacci_recirculation.html [Accessed 20/03/2020]

Lynch, R. (2016) Institute of Network Cultures. ‘The Art of Flex: Network Lessons from Post Internet Art‘. [Online] Available from: https://networkcultures.org/longform/2016/06/22/the-art-of-flex-network-lessons-from-post-internet-art-2/ [Accessed 20/03/2020]

Read, M. (2018) How Much of the Internet is Fake? Turns Out, a Lot of It, Actually. [Online] Available from: http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/12/how-much-of-the-internet-is-fake.html [Accessed 20/03/2020]

The Photographers’ Gallery (2018-2019) All I Know Is What’s On the Internet. [Online] Available from: https://thephotographersgallery.org.uk/whats-on/exhibition/all-i-know-is-whats-on-the-internet [Accessed 20/03/2020]

Watermans (2020) Data Dating. [Online] Available from: https://www.watermans.org.uk/new-media-arts-archive/data-dating/ [Accessed 20/03/2020]

Yanes, J. (2018) The Technology that Creates Fake Reality. [Online] Available from: https://www.bbvaopenmind.com/en/technology/innovation/the-technology-that-creates-fake-reality/ [Accessed 20/03/2020]

Week 8: Responses and Responsibilites – WIP

PHO702: Critical Research Journal

**Figure 1** Murray, J. (2020) *WIP an Authentic Lie?*

“We are rendered transparent, not as subjects of our own narratives but through small bits of information that if taken individually would seem innocuous: for example, liking a comment or image, making a purchase, visiting a webpage, posting or searching the name of a friend or a colleague, blogging, sharing information about where we stayed or visited on our vacation.”
Ravetto-Biagioli, K. (2019; 23)

**Figure 2** Murray, J. (2020) *WIP an Authentic Lie?*

I spent a fair amount of time shooting and editing this week. The editing aspect has been particularly challenging to me, as yet again I have been affected with my work in progress due to Coronavirus, I had hoped that I could go out and about shooting additional landscapes for my glitched backgrounds, however due to the government advice around people with certain conditions (unfortunately a condition I have is on it) I have to self-isolate instead.

**Figure 3** Murray, J. (2020) *WIP an Authentic Lie?*

This has meant that I have encountered limitations on my visual outcomes that have led to the likes of Figure 5 using a glitched background image that I had taken last year to get a leafy tree appearance, otherwise the rest of the backgrounds are images I had taken in London or Bedford in January and February this year (which in some cases were test ideas of areas I wanted to go back to shoot).

**Figure 4** Murray, J. (2020) *WIP an Authentic Lie?*

Overall, my work in progress is now fairly far removed from not only my original intentions but also restrictive within it’s current context, and it has led me to question whether I could use appropriation as a means of creating a more dynamic variation of landscapes or if I could build up imaginary locations using set building, potentially referencing to how the world is very much on lockdown and has begun to shrink socially to digital only spaces.

**Figure 5** Murray, J. (2020) *WIP an Authentic Lie?*

In previous week’s I have mentioned in Week 4 that my intentions for this project was “…to comment on how the mass adoption of the smart phone has affected human relationships, producing couples who are in themselves an authentic lie, spending most of their time hunting for the perfect ‘aspirational’ couple selfie, rather than observing the world around them, or even each other, solely reliant on the mechanical eye of the camera lens on the devices being used as a means of observing.”

**Figure 6** Murray, J. (2020) *WIP an Authentic Lie?*

However, perhaps due to the now widespread pandemic the message and context behind my work has changed, in that the work not only comments on how the smart phone has created the concept of the authentic lie, but also on how currently, the only way we can explore and visit locations is virtually via the internet or traditional media such as books.

**Figure 7** Murray, J. (2020) *WIP an Authentic Lie?*

In the webinar this week it was mentioned that the images are repetitive that they had not paid attention to the what was going on the background, which has me somewhat concerned as my intentions had been to make images that looked similiar but slightly different to assist my narrative that ultimately the selfie itself is unchanging and the least interesting part of relationship photos together out and about, that no one particularly cares about the people in them…

**Figure 8** Murray, J. (2020) *WIP an Authentic Lie?*

The main idea I took from this week was Sontag’s comments around image saturation deadening the conscience and that everything exists to end in a photograph.

**Figure 9** Murray, J. (2020) *WIP an Authentic Lie?*

Having begun reading Digital Uncanny and Performance, Transparency, and the Cultures of Surveillance this week, I have found a strong connection to the following passage from Performance, Transparency, and the Cultures of Surveillance in regards to my overall practice, of social commentary on social media and the notions of oversharing:

“…the uninvited intrusion no longer requires a stranger appearing at the door. Personification has given way to a proliferation of smart technologies: smartphones, smart homes, and smart streets render the stranger, anonymity, and privacy itself obsolete.”
Harding, J.M (2018; 15)

References

Figures

Figure 1 Murray, J. (2020) WIP an Authentic Lie?

Figure 2 Murray, J. (2020) WIP an Authentic Lie?

Figure 3 Murray, J. (2020) WIP an Authentic Lie?

Figure 4 Murray, J. (2020) WIP an Authentic Lie?

Figure 5 Murray, J. (2020) WIP an Authentic Lie?

Figure 6 Murray, J. (2020) WIP an Authentic Lie?

Figure 7 Murray, J. (2020) WIP an Authentic Lie?

Figure 8 Murray, J. (2020) WIP an Authentic Lie?

Figure 9 Murray, J. (2020) WIP an Authentic Lie?

Bibliography

Harding, J. M. (2018) Performance, Transparency, and the Cultures of Surveillance. E-book, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. [Online] Available from: https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9780711. [Accessed 20/03/2020]

Ravetto-Biagioli, K. (2019) Digital Uncanny. ‘Self-Uncanny.‘ pg 23. New York; Oxford University Press.

Sontag, S. (1977) On Photography. pg 21. London; Penguin.