Wednesday, November 5, 2008

temporal indexicality in the age of facebook

In Levin's discussion of "the rhetorical consequences of the now increasingly widespread recognition of the photographic surface...as a construct" (584), there is a corollary: photo-chemical indexicality is replaced with temporal indexicality. I understand this argument as stating that history's own alteration of the photographic image, an alteration made possible through digital and technological advances, replaces the notion of the image itself as proof with the notion of the image as proof of time having passed, of an event, of something that once was. Yet I'm wondering if our own knowledge of the image as proof of the event, of a fleeting moment in time, of something that is - which will, after a photochemical process, become something that once was - almost negates that which is being photographed. I'm wondering if our knowledge - of the image as proof, and consequently, of the moment as proof - creates an artificial moment, and an artificial referent. I'm specifically thinking about facebook photos of red solo cup-clutching college students that have become commonplace and myspace photos of girls posing into their bathroom mirror. This sort of artificiality calls into question the relation of realness to truth; the image is real, but is the moment true? And in relation to the concepts of flow and liveness, how do moments that are photographed disrupt the flow of reality itself?

It also seems to me that there is a paradox in the notion of digital enhancement and photoshopping, for isn't it this very malleability of the photographic image that allows film to be "a vehicle for storytelling" in addition to a "medium that documents, that chronicle what actually happens in the world?"

I am also curious as to where the omniponence of surveillance images comes from.
"When one sees what one takes to be a surveillance image, one does not usually ask if it is 'real' (this is simply assumed) but instead attempts to establish whether 'the real' that is being captured by the camera is being recorded or is simply a closed-circuit 'real time' feed. This is precisely what gives these sorts of images their semiotic appeal" (585)
In this quote, it appears that there is no dispute over the realness of the surveillance image. I'm wondering what this says about the relationship between the camera that records the surveillance image and the spectator; is there something fundamentally different about this relationship that enables greater trust?

No comments: