In Helen Westgeest's "Digital Appropriation as Photographic Practice & Theory," the author elaborates on the idea of seemingly inevitable appropriation surrounding the realm of photography in today's digital age. Throughout this segment, Westgeest presents different processes of appropriation, discussing concepts such as the difference between "taking" and "making" images. The evolution of photography's creation and development has also given rise to thoughtful considerations, including the observation of a "relationship between how we deal with images nowadays and the great quantity of images we are confronted with" (Westgeest, 2). In accordance with this idea, Westgeest also discusses the link between photography and tourism, a relationship that calls to mind a somewhat innovative execution of appropriation performed by many individuals. While the wide availability of these images may lessen their value, the very accessibility of these photographs and the techniques used to create them have revolutionized and added "new" elements to modern image-making processes.
In correlation with Westgeest's own discussion, the passages from Robert Shore's "Post-Photography" exhibit the increased scrutiny with which modern day culture regards photography, seeing as the vast accessibility of technology allows anyone and everyone to create these images. An interesting idea to consider is the constant theme of viewing photography as "a medium of witness" (Shore, 8). This active incorporation of the photographer into a powerful and important position allows modern artists to retain a new level of creative autonomy.
If we are to acknowledge the creative possibilities present within the concept of appropriation, would it also be logical to assume that the limitless resources of inspiration we have at our disposal can also put our work is at risk of being unapologetically unoriginal? Is this necessarily a "bad" thing? Is it even possible to ever be truly original?
No comments:
Post a Comment