It goes without saying that the image is omnipresent and can refer to and be many a varied thing. What I want to consider is the image as representation of experience, the commodification of the image, how our lives are affected by the image, how our lives are an image, and what that means.
At the moment I want to look specifically at the image that is created to remind you of actual experience. The representation or simulacrum in place of an actual whole physical or mental experience. Imagine a poster. I have on my fireplace mantle a large still image taken from the popular New Wave film Breathless, framed as a poster for the purpose of display (for reasons we will soon get to), the title and credits in french. The image is a film-still, further promoting the idea that this is simply a frozen moment of the full experience with which I have previously interacted. This is a commodified representation of the film itself, and that it uses an actual still from the film is evidence that it is meant to be both reminiscent and promotional, more so the former than the latter, due to it’s already staggering popularity, it needs little promotion. It is there so that when looked upon it may conjure an emotion or memory of the film itself.
The commodified image representational of an experience, whether it be a poster, a DVD cover, a book of art pieces etc, is there to conjure, when looked upon (on a daily basis), the memory of the experience which one may have had with the representation’s whole. In the case of the poster, sending me back, internally, to the watching of the film. Forcing me to remember the faces, the patchwork mis en scene, forcing me to remember Michel running helplessly down the street after being shot, to remember whatever it is that I remember about the film.
A poster itself is not objective, it displays an opinion. There are thousands of frames in a movie, thousands of images that might represent the film. To create this poster, they had to choose one. One frozen moment within thousands and ask that that image stand as an iconic representation of the film. So, in the selection itself lies an opinion, a statement. And there are generally two purposes to consider. How do we want to market this film? Or how do we want this film to be remembered? An image that is created prior to the release of the film is created less with a simulacrum for the underlying idea or intent of the film and more with the most profitable representations and images that are within the film: famous actors, directors, et al. This pre-release image is purely to drive commerce, to fill seats, and rarely are these images (especially now) simply stills from the film, as this would not serve its ultimate purpose.
On the other side of the coin, a poster created after the movie has been out is generally memorabilia - it is: how is this film or how do we want this film (experience) to be remembered? Sometimes this image will represent, to its best ability, the underlying idea of the film experience. And often this image may simply be a still from the film; some popular moment from the film, and sometimes it is wittily both. This is especially prevalent with films of cultural significance. Why create art to represent the film, which is a popular film, when an image from the film will suffice in drawing nostalgic emotions in it’s viewer, and if the right image is chosen, also represent the intentions of the films creator(s)? It is the living with these post-experience images that I want to take a closer look at.
With this indelible image displayed in my home, beautifully framed, presumably for the next many years, the possibility is there that in a way it could kind of become the film. This is an unfortunate thing and one of the inherent downfalls with commodified images. This happens because there is no way that that image can make someone, or myself, feel exactly again as they (I) did when they watched the film, or had the experience. It is only capable of generating a memory of the experience, which is not the experience itself. When it can become a problem is when we accept this image as a worthy representation, a good stand-in, even though it is insubstantial. We are taking a usually inadequate (at least if the work is any good), representation of an experience and purchasing it to hold at bay any desire we have for the whole, that can not be immediately met. And it is possible that as a result, I would argue, it can take away from the experience, simply as it is a daily interaction that can be taken in place of the full experience; It hangs on our wall and is in our daily orbit of interest.
Another, and I might say even more curious example is of another poster I own. It was marketed as a collectible piece of artwork: There were only something like three hundred made, and they were all made by hand, screen-printed, it is a great design and also beautifully matted and framed. The curious thing is that the image is the same exact image that adorns the box cover for the DVD. This poster was made AFTER the film was created and released in theatres, but was made for the purpose of selling the newly released, high quality DVD of the film. This poster is not a nostalgic reminder of the film experience using unaltered images from the film that would elicit detailed memories, the posters sale satisfying the sole purpose of it’s existence. It is a poster created to market and foster the further sale of the DVD of the film, the sale of the poster being in addition to it’s ultimate goal. And making only three hundred and making them by hand is simply a brilliant marketing trick, generating desire through exclusivity. So the poster is an enlarged representation of a representation of a film experience. However, one could argue that it being a Criterion Collection release, the representation is more ‘artistic’, reason being that the label takes time and care to create interesting designs, but this is a pointless consideration and they don’t always (or arguably ever) do well to represent the ideas of the film experience. Even though this image is twice removed from the film, standing as representation, I would not argue that this particular image has the capacity, as compared to the other, to take more away from the experience of it’s respective whole because it is an original design that was inspired by the film, to entice people to watch the film, and not a simulacrum of the film to represent the experience. My experience with the film has not been enhanced by the owning of the poster, and this can be said for both images in both cases, but being that I love these movies, and watch them for the full experience often, they have not taken away from the experience either and I would never take them down. And this can be argued for anyone who has an image of something they love. It's the possibility and the idea that is important. I would say however, of the images, they can create a sort of disparity between the owner and the original whole, as the images are inadequate representations that are more often interacted with than the piece itself, and can even foster ideas that were not of the intent of the artist if the original piece is replaced by this representation, or seen by an individual who has never experienced it's represented whole. This is an important distinction because this inadequate representation, if accepted as an adequate one, can become a dangerous thing when applied to other aspects of life, and is not nearly as easy to remedy. Once framed and hung, we find an interesting shift has occured, the commodified image now becomes a representation not just of the film but of the owner as well.
The interesting thing about art is that it is so easily commodified, it can’t help but be commodified, because all good art leaves a strong impact. It removes you emotionally and mentally from your normal surroundings, it is something exceptional that needs to be witnessed, felt; and all those who like art have been moved by it at some point; meaning removed from normalcy and suspended or placed into a separate reality, or often given a better understanding of ours. And this shift in perception, this being-moved, is not something that is experienced constantly and consistently, it can not be something that is experienced constantly and consistently, as modern life does not allow it. In the society we have created, we have made sure that we can not experience the effects of art on any sort of perpetual basis. So then this moving experience, this shifting of perception creates a particular void, and this void can be filled in one of two ways: the full experience again, or representations of the experience that we can deem acceptable. We are not happy without experiencing this art but can not exclusively experience it in it’s natural form, so when not experiencing the whole art we look for simulacra of the experience that fit nicely into the living spaces in which we occupy (often in the form of images). We seek these representations to fill the void because we know they are out there, because the main facet of our society is capitalism. The commodified image then flourishes in a social environment like ours, one that makes such demands on our time but makes easily available the representations of our interests at a small cost.
These experience-simulacra, since they now fill our living spaces, become representations of ourselves; declarations of our taste, intellectual level, or our ideas and beliefs, etc. These representations then falsely become as important if not a little more in our lives than the experience itself, since now this representation is a part of us - this represents the experience and myself - as socially, we are our tastes. In this, capitalism and the commodified image remove us from the actual art, until we can find the time to experience the shift again. But we are less likely to seek out the experience again because of our modern fragmented nature and because we have, what we have deemed, acceptable representations of the experience all around us, negating the need to spend the time with the real experience. A better example than a movie poster might be a book of paintings. The representation, even if in color, can never be an acceptable way to experience the painting, yet the painting might be half way across the world, so it is accepted. Because the commodification of an experience with a piece of art makes the representation itself representational of both the experience and an individual (the consumer, the purchaser), then commodification of an experience - especially with images - works great on Americans, who are concerned with the idea of identity, individuality, and self-image, and who are fed a consistent diet of images via our myriad media outlets. Thus we are all slaves of the necessity to personify ourselves through the things we consider to be interesting, making us children in the game with giants in a commodity based society, powered solely by commerce and currency. Once they have sniffed out our desire to represent ourselves through commodified objects, the sky is the limit, and they need only to keep reminding us how right we are.
to be continued........
No comments:
Post a Comment