I feel that so much was discussed in class these past two weeks that I'm not really sure where to start. However, one strand of thought that repeatedly came up and I want to further think about is "What does it mean to see, but not experience?" Christine pointed out that seeing means being able to define, and this seeing becomes truth in the eye of the powerful beholder.
This statement reminded me of our other class discussions on people's roles as viewers; and also of cameras and photography. What is the nature of looking? Often times, the camera, whether intentional or not is a form of "weaponized looking" or "asymmetrical gaze." The view of the camera can be though as voyeuristic, because it is something that disrupts a moment of time or even privacy. In that respect, the camera’s gaze represents the gaze of power. I previously took a HAVC course that focused on the role of photography during the colonization of Southeast Asia, and some of the ideas I thought tied into Hales' "The Atomic Sublime." Because our society has had constant exposure to extreme tragedy, we have become desensitized to trauma that does not directly relate to us. The colonial period used photography as a means of documenting and acting as visual surveillance. And even today, photography continues to act as surveillance in this post colonial period. Through mediums of tourism or personal photography, this snap happy culture that a majority of society partakes in clouds an individual's vision. Instead of really seeing what is in front of them, it is filtered through a screen.
I think some questions to think about are: Why is it so difficult for people to put down that screen and really see what experience is unfolding before them? We've talked about aesthetics and anesthetics, how are we each perpetuating sensory alienation today? And by thinking about these kinds of questions, how can we attempt to undo alienation?
No comments:
Post a Comment