Visual Technologies. Image Production, and the Copy

How has the reproduction of images changed society and culture as a whole? The invention of the camera has, for the first time, been able to freeze an image as it actually exists. Cezanne says of photography, "We cannot claim to have really seen anything before having photographed it (185)." It was thought by many that photography was the new and improved way of seeing, making real time vision obsolete. I think from the Joseph Nicéphore Niépce's first photograph in 1826, human's developed a sense of pride that they could essentially 'capture' an image, taking ownership of it. This picture was the first known photograph, rediscovered in 1952. "Niépce captured the photo with a camera obscura focused onto a sheet of 20 × 25 cm oil-treated bitumen. As a result of the 8-hour exposure, sunlight illuminates the buildings on both sides (Wiki)." Techonology has drastically--exponentially increased over the past century. We now carry palm sized 8.0 megapixel cameras in our pockets, taking 500+ pictures a vacation without having to change film or flash. Photographs eventually led to film strips, and then motion pictures. The evolution of image reproduction was undoubtedly rapid, however the adaptation undergone by the culture along side the increasing technology was relatively seamless.

Jean Baudrillard theorized that our culture's obsession with image reproduction and copies would lead to a simulated reality wherein everything we see is shrouded by the simulacra, or the copies. Roland Barthes remarks that film has a 'unique affinity with the real.' Movies like The Matrix used such ideas to create a world where the real is not really real at all, only a reproduction of the real, or the hyper-real. Although this might seem fantastical to most, take a look at the average American's intake of reproduced images in a single day. Two hours of TV in the morning, staring at a computer all day at work, TV at night, a magazine, sleep, and repeat.I think its worth while, in a culture as visual stimulated as ours, to take time to reflect on what we are taking in. Images like Che Guevera, Hitler, Obama, Charlie Chaplin, and dozens of other influential figures have had their pictures artistically modified to fit just about any T-shirt agenda, or bumper sticker philosophy. Our eyes grow so accustomed to these images, like Mona Lisa, it becomes easy for people to piggy-back on top of them, adding a layer of their own meaning. They can be made heroes or fools all in the presentation of a photograph or a piece of art. Obviously then, these images are spun in different directions by political activists. Take this picture of Obama for instance. It is obviously supporting him a beacon of promise and hope for our country. His face is delicately highlighted with red, white, and blue colors, signifying his focus on America. In this picture, someone is trying to draw a clear parallel between these two recognizable figures, using the Obama graphic campaign slogan and his typical graphic design (highlighted red, white, and blue). The agenda of this artists rendition of Hitler is very clear, however ridiculous. Because of the evocativity of Hitler's image, this artists' rendering has a very chilling and powerful effect. As a culture we are collectively conscience of a large number of images.

The question we as culture ask ourselves, is what does it matter if its a copy? Does a copied version of Mona Lisa really have less of whatever the original claims to have. In actuality, the original to most is very anti-climactic, whereas thrilling reproduction that blow her into a larger print or give her tye-dye hair--those can be more appealing and more overall 'value' than the original.