Today I was as shocked as everybody else to hear about the shooting in a Denver cinema at the premiere of the new Batman film. It is indeed a tragedy not only because what happened was a truly terrible thing but also because there are responses to it that are a tragedy in themselves.
As would be expected social media came alive immediately as the news broke. This happened in the usual ways: twitter trends, facebook posts and memes, etc. and of course happened with phenomenal immediacy to the event. But today I found myself booted off a facebook page that I had previously "liked" and was being accused of spamming by its moderator for participating in a discussion about the appropriateness of an image posted on this site in that image's comments section. This is a first for me, as I don't consider myself a troll by any measure. The problem I had was the use of the image posted with the intention of paying respects to the victims of the shooting and their families, which was the same as the image below but had "REST IN PEACE" in large type across the top.
My issue was, as I posted, that this is in fact not a tribute, it doesn't pay any form of respect to anybody, and is actually quite insulting to both the victims and our intelligence (both intellectual and emotional). Using a movie poster to pay respect to the victims of such a horrible event reduces their experience to the pop cultural realm of movies and entertainment. It happened at the movies not in the movies.
I was not the only person to notice this. In fact, the first comment on this post was, "This picture is in bad taste." There were then three or four other comments that were collectively addressed by the moderator who protested that the image was "not about taste, it was about trying to pay respects to the victims of such a terrible tragedy" and later that it was not the intention of the author to upset people and the all further comments against the image would be regarded as spam and their authors would be blocked from the page.
I resolved that I didn't really "like" the page anyway and that I would to try to set the moderator straight. What he didn't realise, and what so many people don't realise is that images are actually very difficult to use as an effective form of communication. We have a responsibility as image makers, and indeed image users, to be aware of this. With the surge of digital text-based communication that occurred 15 - 20 years ago, everybody in their own way came to terms with the realisation that text and voice, while they both used words, actually possessed very disparate expressive qualities. We all struggled over the fact that email and SMS could not capture the tone of voice adequately. But we've never given a thought to how the speed of this manipulation and the quick digital transmission of images might impact on our understanding of how they communicate. This is because, for some reason, we think we understand images and how they work.
There is still, surprisingly, a heated argument going on in photojournalist and professional photography circles about the digital manipulation of images but this argument focusses mainly on whether or not the photograph is "true" if it has been digitally altered, and under the guise of ethics its pundits are actually arguing over aesthetics. That argument is way too boring to address here but I will add that these arguments rarely, if ever, address the much more ethically pertinent question related to the speed with which images can be manipulated and how quickly that manipulation is distributed. Manipulation is now the norm, the nature of its use and distribution is what we should be looking at critically. What does it say about our visual intelligence, not that an image such as the movie poster memorial can be created, but that it can be created so quickly and without even a split second of reflective thought about what it might mean, and what it might mean in all of the many and varied contexts it will appear in over the next few minutes?
I have since found about three versions of this "tribute", one of which even mentions "God" in the text. I admit that I don't recognise the source image, I don't know if it is actually a movie poster, a production still, publicity shot, or frozen action from one of the films, or something else altogether. And I've got no hope of figuring where its life as meme began either, who its original author was, but what this kind of viral culture proves more than anything is that origins matter very little. But it seems also that destinations matter even less. Like the ye olde chain letter, it doesn't matter where it ends up as long as it keeps going, perpetuating and replicating itself ad infinitum... they are called "memes" after all. When these images are posted in desperate attempts to generate long flowing streams of comments and a four or five digit "like" counter, we lose sight of the actual message that is being perpetuated.
Take a moment to think. How would one of the survivors of the massacre feel about seeing an image of Batman, as respectful and as solemn as his pose is, as well-meaning as the memer's intention is, as respectful as the text may be? The trauma of this kind of event is impossible to imagine, and the image of Batman may have very little negative affect on a victim, but the point is: we don't know. The reality is that images do in fact have origins, and in this case it is enough to say that it comes from the general quagmire of popular culture and entertainment. And if the text on these tributes is to be taken literally, they also have a destination, which in this case is actually the victims themselves (see image below). The trouble is that this origin and destination are not actually what the memer thinks about. Despite the presence of presumed addressees in the text they are not the intended audience, really. People share or like these kinds of images in accordance with the myth of solidarity the act implies.
The real point of this image, or more acurately, the point of its use, is to express one's shock and sympathy. But what actually happens is that because of the viral distribution of the image, and of course its ridiculous content, the very real trauma of witnessing the shooting, being shot at, or losing somebody close is simplified and sanitised down to a corny pop culture reference. These memorial memes become a generic emotional response despite the sharing being driven by a presumably very specific emotional response. The speed with which these memes are created and distributed prevent the intervention of a critical viewpoint which is an absolute necessity when this is fast becoming the primary mode of our interaction with images. I made this mistake recently, immediately reposting a hoax image from Back to the Future showing that particular day's date which had been digitally altered.
The point of what I have written here is to be mindful of the power of images. But it is also a caution to not overestimate that power. Just as the Kony 2012 viral campaign a few months back did nothing, an image you share on facebook will not comfort the victims of the Colorado shooting. But what it can do is diminish and trivialise the seriousness of the real event. But to his credit, the moderator of the page in question did take the image down in the end, hopefully he will now treat images a little more carefully.
As would be expected social media came alive immediately as the news broke. This happened in the usual ways: twitter trends, facebook posts and memes, etc. and of course happened with phenomenal immediacy to the event. But today I found myself booted off a facebook page that I had previously "liked" and was being accused of spamming by its moderator for participating in a discussion about the appropriateness of an image posted on this site in that image's comments section. This is a first for me, as I don't consider myself a troll by any measure. The problem I had was the use of the image posted with the intention of paying respects to the victims of the shooting and their families, which was the same as the image below but had "REST IN PEACE" in large type across the top.
My issue was, as I posted, that this is in fact not a tribute, it doesn't pay any form of respect to anybody, and is actually quite insulting to both the victims and our intelligence (both intellectual and emotional). Using a movie poster to pay respect to the victims of such a horrible event reduces their experience to the pop cultural realm of movies and entertainment. It happened at the movies not in the movies.
I was not the only person to notice this. In fact, the first comment on this post was, "This picture is in bad taste." There were then three or four other comments that were collectively addressed by the moderator who protested that the image was "not about taste, it was about trying to pay respects to the victims of such a terrible tragedy" and later that it was not the intention of the author to upset people and the all further comments against the image would be regarded as spam and their authors would be blocked from the page.
I resolved that I didn't really "like" the page anyway and that I would to try to set the moderator straight. What he didn't realise, and what so many people don't realise is that images are actually very difficult to use as an effective form of communication. We have a responsibility as image makers, and indeed image users, to be aware of this. With the surge of digital text-based communication that occurred 15 - 20 years ago, everybody in their own way came to terms with the realisation that text and voice, while they both used words, actually possessed very disparate expressive qualities. We all struggled over the fact that email and SMS could not capture the tone of voice adequately. But we've never given a thought to how the speed of this manipulation and the quick digital transmission of images might impact on our understanding of how they communicate. This is because, for some reason, we think we understand images and how they work.
There is still, surprisingly, a heated argument going on in photojournalist and professional photography circles about the digital manipulation of images but this argument focusses mainly on whether or not the photograph is "true" if it has been digitally altered, and under the guise of ethics its pundits are actually arguing over aesthetics. That argument is way too boring to address here but I will add that these arguments rarely, if ever, address the much more ethically pertinent question related to the speed with which images can be manipulated and how quickly that manipulation is distributed. Manipulation is now the norm, the nature of its use and distribution is what we should be looking at critically. What does it say about our visual intelligence, not that an image such as the movie poster memorial can be created, but that it can be created so quickly and without even a split second of reflective thought about what it might mean, and what it might mean in all of the many and varied contexts it will appear in over the next few minutes?
I have since found about three versions of this "tribute", one of which even mentions "God" in the text. I admit that I don't recognise the source image, I don't know if it is actually a movie poster, a production still, publicity shot, or frozen action from one of the films, or something else altogether. And I've got no hope of figuring where its life as meme began either, who its original author was, but what this kind of viral culture proves more than anything is that origins matter very little. But it seems also that destinations matter even less. Like the ye olde chain letter, it doesn't matter where it ends up as long as it keeps going, perpetuating and replicating itself ad infinitum... they are called "memes" after all. When these images are posted in desperate attempts to generate long flowing streams of comments and a four or five digit "like" counter, we lose sight of the actual message that is being perpetuated.
Take a moment to think. How would one of the survivors of the massacre feel about seeing an image of Batman, as respectful and as solemn as his pose is, as well-meaning as the memer's intention is, as respectful as the text may be? The trauma of this kind of event is impossible to imagine, and the image of Batman may have very little negative affect on a victim, but the point is: we don't know. The reality is that images do in fact have origins, and in this case it is enough to say that it comes from the general quagmire of popular culture and entertainment. And if the text on these tributes is to be taken literally, they also have a destination, which in this case is actually the victims themselves (see image below). The trouble is that this origin and destination are not actually what the memer thinks about. Despite the presence of presumed addressees in the text they are not the intended audience, really. People share or like these kinds of images in accordance with the myth of solidarity the act implies.
The real point of this image, or more acurately, the point of its use, is to express one's shock and sympathy. But what actually happens is that because of the viral distribution of the image, and of course its ridiculous content, the very real trauma of witnessing the shooting, being shot at, or losing somebody close is simplified and sanitised down to a corny pop culture reference. These memorial memes become a generic emotional response despite the sharing being driven by a presumably very specific emotional response. The speed with which these memes are created and distributed prevent the intervention of a critical viewpoint which is an absolute necessity when this is fast becoming the primary mode of our interaction with images. I made this mistake recently, immediately reposting a hoax image from Back to the Future showing that particular day's date which had been digitally altered.
The point of what I have written here is to be mindful of the power of images. But it is also a caution to not overestimate that power. Just as the Kony 2012 viral campaign a few months back did nothing, an image you share on facebook will not comfort the victims of the Colorado shooting. But what it can do is diminish and trivialise the seriousness of the real event. But to his credit, the moderator of the page in question did take the image down in the end, hopefully he will now treat images a little more carefully.
No comments:
Post a Comment