Photography and Liquid Intelligence

In 1989, the digital age was consuming all things analog. Jeff Wall (1989: 231) predicted that, “electronic and digital information systems...will replace photographic film.”  

Wall continues by being indifferent about this transformation. He is neither for nor against such a change. However, Wall (1989) does believe that there will be a new displacement of water in photography.

Water (liquid) signifies an archaism in photography. After all, it is water and chemicals which enable photographic prints to be developed in the darkroom. Furthermore, photography is able to capture the fluidity of nature and form of nature. Conversely, these can only be recreated through the dry intelligence of the camera, such as its mechanics and optics.

Wall (1989) alludes to the idea that digital photography will be based on the generation of electricity, therefore altering ‘the historical consciousness of the medium.’ However, Wall continues by considering how patterns and compound curvatures enable natural forms to be visible, and related to the dry intelligence of optics and mechanics. Therefore, achieving a memory of the path it has traversed. 

With the many angled and geometric shapes that are caused by glitches, flaws in digital images reference back to natural structures. 

Although digital photography has drained the need for water, since there is no longer a need for a darkroom with chemicals, photography retains a sense of fluidity in the way that it has changed its shape, adapting to new technology and vernacular. Furthermore, now that the digital image is projected onto our screens by using light, photography is even closer than ever to its beginnings as a camera obscura, which was used project light. In that sense, photography has always involved dry intelligence. The historical consciousness of photography has reverted back to its origin.

Reference

Wall, J. (1989) “Photographie et intelligence” / “”Photography and Liquid Intelligence” in Jean-françois Chevrier and a James Lingwood, Une Autre Objectivité / Another Objectivity, exh cat. (Milan: Idea Books for Centre Nationals des Arts Plastiques, Paris, and Prato: Centroids per l’Arte Contemporanea Luigi Pecci, 1989), pp231 -232

The Pencil of Error

Since glitch art relies on nonhuman errors being made, the case for authorship can be difficult to prove. In her abstract, Pasek (2017: 37) argues that:

  artists and theorists may need to relinquish a defence of the role of the artists...

Ever since it’s infancy, photography has struggled to define whether it is art, and now it is at odds with itself about whether digital photography can be compared to its analog predecessor. However, Pasek (2017) attempts to align the two due to their ‘black box’ methods of production. Whilst the analog photograph is the product of the magical chemical processes of the darkroom, the digital image is conjured up on a screen following a series of algorithms. Therefore, in both analog and digital methodologies, part of the creative process is out of the influence of the ‘artist’. 

In an attempt to rectify this situation, Pasek (2017: 37) presents a case for a post-liquid intelligence, arguing that:  

  artists and theorists may need to relinquish a defence of the role of the artist. 

Using Jeff Wall’s ‘Milk’ (below) as an example, Pasek (2017) illustrates how the digitising of an analog image alters its state. Whilst the original hangs in MoMA, there are many iterations of the photograph on the Internet. By being digitised, the very architecture of the image has been altered, possibly creating an alternative photograph. In some ways it depends on how we interrogate an image. Is it at face value, or is it about the process itself? 

On reflection, I find it interesting that Pasek has chosen one of Jeff Wall’s images to illustrate her point, especially when he is an acclaimed photographer, who is best known for staged photography.  The brick background reinforces the static nature of the image, whilst the exploding milk appears out of place in the scene. 

Pasek (2017: 49) attempts to realign the Photographic process by stating that: 

  Photography...is not wholly the photographer, it is also a curious dynamism between dry and wet intelligences.  

Instead of attempting to define itself as art, or who or what is responsible for the resulting image, photography needs to accept itself for what it is. Photography! 

Reference

Pasek, A. Photography and Culture. Vol. 10 - Issue 1 March 2017 pp.37 - 52

Milk, by Jeff Wall (1984) 

Glitch Art in Theory and Practice

Betancourt (2017: 1 - 2) refers to the technical aspects of digital technology as:

pixelated images that re/compose reality as a juxtaposition of discrete fragments…

Rather than a continuous form, the digital realm consists of various errors and flaws which are waiting to appear. The digital image is fragile and susceptible to error. These blips in the high definition, mega-pixel displays can appear randomly with a number of varying possibilities. In Glitch Aesthetics, Iman Moradi (2004) categorised these errors as:

fragmentation, replication, and linearity.

Betancourt (2017: 6) continues by claiming that these glitches are an expected occurrence for users of digital technology. That these ‘flaws’ are:

transient surface flaws that rapidly vanish from both our screens and our consideration.

In other words, glitches are like the brush strokes in Van Gogh’s Sunflowers, or lens flare from sunlight on film.

Despite Betancourt’s view, many photographers who have lost irreplaceable images, because of a corrupt memory card, will beg to differ. The very nature of the digital image makes it fragile and easily fractured.

Furthermore, when considering glitched images as art, the question remains as to who, or what, is the artist? The artist facilitates the glitch by using software and technology, but the final outcome is not predetermined. The glitch s a product of a random sequence of events.

Betancourt, M. (2017) Glitch Art in Theory and Practice: Critical Failures and Post-Digital Aesthetics

Moradi, I. Glitch Aesthetics BA dissertation, School of Design Technology, Department of Architecture, The University of Huddersfield, January 27, 2004) pp. 28-33.