random access memoryadrien cater + peter chylewski |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
vernacular photography, and the appropriation thereofSearching for serial numbers rather than words, beyond simply yielding a heterogeneous result, implies a rejection of known meaning and the unavoidable bias of an editor or curator. This project differs fundamentally from previous work with appropriation of vernacular photography in that there is no rational or aesthetic selection made, the images are chosen purely at random, and from an extremely, unimaginably, large and varied source. In working with vernacular or other appropriations of photography, the role of the ‘communicator’ shifts from the original photographer to the editor or curator, who selects amongst existing images rather than ‘in the world’ to construct a message. ram, however, has no editor only spectators. more questions than answersThe viewer of the slide-show is confronted with many unanswered questions: Who took this image? And more importantly, why? Just what does this image represent? What would compel the photographer to take this picture? What is the interest of putting this image on the internet for others to see? The images in ram are shown on screen for approximately 5 seconds (depending on the context), which is enough time to parse most images and appreciate a few details, but not enough time to form any definitive hypothesis as to it’s origins and the intentions of the photographer. This rhythm, and it’s subsequent mystery, are a key to holding the viewer’s interest. other people’s picturesAll of the images shown in ram are public in the sense that they have been made accessible on the internet for google to index and for ram to download. The original photographers have not specifically prevented google indexing their web pages and the images are available for anyone to download, though whether they specifically intended public viewing is not known. Although no invasive procedures are used to acquire the images, it cannot be assumed that the images are ‘for us to see’ the sheer size of the internet makes any single image so statistically insignificant as to be nearly anonymous, and so anything can be ‘hidden in plain sight’. Though google (and by extension ram) knows no boundaries of etiquette, an image’s appearance in ram does not intrude on the ‘private’ lives of the original photographer the image is once again camouflaged in a context of an effectively infinite number of images of similar stature negating the obvious assumption of a voyeuristic nature in our consumption of these images. Rather, it is the question of the intended audience which is central. The ‘infinite’ nature of the internet fosters communication between peers with a special shared interest, and looking at the images presented in ram is quite like walking in on, say, a veterinary opthamology conference though we have few tools to understand the discussion at hand, the images are quite fascinating. In fact, it is quite probable that the spectator of ram is not the (assumed) intended audience for any image they might glimpse. Images of vacations are assumed to be intended for friends and family, images of people at conferences for those who were (or should have been) there, images of model trains are for model train enthusiasts. Removed from any context which could provide real meaning to the image, all images are ‘not for us to see’. disconnectionRemoved from meaningful context, a photo of a model train could be the latest creation of an enthusiast, could be for sale on eBay, could be a reconstruction of a scene in a Hitchcock film, or could be an image created by a professional photographer/artist shown in a gallery in London or any combination thereof. We do not know. This puts the entire question of meaning in the minds and fantasy of the spectator, who are left for themselves to construct an explanation of the origin and significance of an image, as well as the construction of a narrative between consecutive images. the internet is bigGoogle has (as of today) 880,000,000 images in it’s database this works out to approximately 139 years of images shown as a non-stop slide-show. The infinite nature of ram is an important part of the viewing experience while we know we are free to go at any time because we will never see ‘the whole thing’, we are compelled to stay and see another (or just one more...) image. This mirrors the always connected, never concentrated, nature of the internet, call it Attention Deficit Disorder Art. distractionAs our eye is neurologically compelled to focus it’s attention on motion in the peripheral vision, ram has much the same effect as a TV in a bar or café no matter how uninteresting the program, we cannot not glance at the screen, much to the chagrin of the person sitting with their face to us and their back to the TV. ram functions best in a social space, where it can oblige indirect attention in this sense it is a work, unlike others, best appreciated at a vernissage. Rather than the viewer’s attention being distracted away from the images, they are distracted to the images.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
process + technical specifications |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
precedents + influences
A Million Random Digits
Evidence
Useful Photography #2
Manuel de la Photo Raté
Boring Postcards
Gerhard Richter
other references & precedentsRandom Personal Picture Finder Fi**Pi** (no link available) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|