As I was reading Lizzie's post, I remembered a story I recently read on BBC news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7696188.stm
This year's winning entry to the Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2008 award was a snow leopard hunting at night. Except that instead of the photographer personally having taken the photo, he set up surveillance cameras and waited for the leopard to be snapped when it triggered motion sensors. Where does the art in this lie? Is it staging of the cameras? Or the positioning of the lighting? Or the fact that he just got very lucky with his photograph? And what is to be said that the picture actually won the award?
I also enjoyed Park's point in her TSA airport article regarding the 'odd economies of re-distribution that have emerged as an effect on the war of terror'. If the travelers are the so-called losers (being stuck in security lines and having to pay $3.50 for a bottle of water) then who are the winners? Al-Qaeda? The security companies paid to instal CCTV cameras in airports? The TSA staff taking home your new bottle of after-shave when passengers forget they can't take liquids on-board? These new markets deserve to analyzed, in relation to both surveillance and media.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment