As Hito Steyerl states in her essay “In Defense of the poor image”, poor images are poor because they are not assigned any value (Steyerl, 2012). A question raised in my head, what if we turn something that is extremely valuable into poor images, how does that change its value? Art masterpieces are usually sold in extremely expensive prices but how do we define their values? As I turned the art masterpieces into poor images and pixelated, they gradually become unrecognizable, and it is the process of devaluation. However, on the other hand, viewers become the editor, critics, translator and co-author of the poor image through the decoding process.
Annotated Bibliography
From the reading list:
- Steyerl, H., 2012. In Defense of the Poor Image. The Wretched of the Screen, Berlin: Sternberg Press, pp.31-45.
In the essay, Steyerl states that the ‘poor image’ is the result of mass-reproduction and are often distributed with less care in quality and a heavily emphasize on quantity. Also, she argues that low resolution makes the image out of focus which lowers its value. Therefore, I referenced this idea of devaluation and explored the value of arts. I’ve also seen the overuse of “poor image” on many social media platforms. Some iconic images are manipulated with computer software to be made into memes. This further inspired me as the poor images can be a sign of users becomes the co-author/editor of the image.
- Tenen, D., 2017. Literature down to a pixel. Plain Text: The Poetics of Computation, Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp.165-195.
The author Tenen argues that the change of the medium from paper to pixel entails a series of corresponding changes in the mode of perception. And from physical to digital, it affects how people perceive the work, for example eye movement, posture, and etc. So, as I turned the paintings into digital format, the mode of perception change at the same time. The original way of seeing these paintings would be to physically go to the museum and having the immersive experience, however, when they are turn into digital format, one can just see it through internet and hundreds of miles from the physical paintings. Also, by pixelating the paintings, the faux low-fidelity aesthetic asserts its independence from the history of the art piece, as a result manipulating their original value.
From my own researches:
- Findlay, M., 2014. The Value of Art: Money, Power, Beauty. Munich: PRESTEL.
As a veteran in the circle, Findlay is very familiar with the operating rules of the art market. His experiences constitute his reflections on the commercial and social value of art. But what Findlay values the most is the most essential aesthetic value of art. In this book, he combined his decades of experience to summarize a set of methods for appreciating art. The commercial value of art is essentially a consensus. Picasso’s paintings are worth tens of millions, because everyone has a consensus on the name Picasso. Also, the aesthetic value of art goes beyond what language can express, and the aesthetic experience of art can activate people’s inner feelings. As a result, for my project, by manipulating the aesthetic of the art piece, I was able to devaluate them but because it was also another form of aesthetic experience, it can never be valueless.
- Artincontext.org. 2022. Most Expensive Paintings – A Look at the Wold’s Most Valuable Paintings. [online] Available at: <https://artincontext.org/most-expensive-paintings/#:~:text=Salvator%20Mundi%20(1500)%20by%20Leonardo%20da%20Vinci, Artist%20of%20Painting&text=At%20an%20auction%20held%20at,a%20nineteen%2Dminute%20bidding%20war.>.
This website listed the most expensive paintings ever sold in the history and talked about their reasons being so expensive. I referenced this list to create my project for this week. Looking at these painting all together, we can see that the paintings are pricy because they represent an idea, or reflect a history/movement, or the author uses unique techniques. Art pieces can not only fulfill people’s aesthetic needs but also is a tool for the artists to express themselves.
Practices:
- Schmidt, H., 2021. What Is the Poor Image Rich in?. [online] Helenaschmidt.com. Available at: <http://www.helenaschmidt.com/>.
Similarly inspired by Hito Steyer’s essay, this website is a collection of poor images, which can be uploaded anonymously by users. As a user of many social media platform, I can see the overuse of poor images. They are often low-resolution images shot by personal devices or memes created by manipulating famous art works. Schmidt’s archive website inspired me in the way that poor images are not only restricted by its resolution quality but also the low-class visual feelings it creates to the viewers. There are lots of archive about famous art pieces been turn into poor images through the manipulation and reproduction. This makes me think about how easily we can change the value of an image through recreation and manipulation.
- Mapes, M., 2014. Dutch male specimen: J. [photographs, painted photographs, fabric samples, rope, sand, sea shells, coffee, tea, tea bags, tobacco, gunpowder, sugar, driftwood, hair, cast resin, clay, thread, insect pins, capsules, specimen bags, magnifying boxes].
Michael Mapes creates portraits of people by putting pieces of photos and many other mundane objects. When looking at the portrait as a whole, it looks like a low-resolution image, and when looking more closely to the objects or pieces of photo, they look like swarms of smaller portraits of the person they depict. The recreation combine with the focus on detail is what makes the work valuable and innovative. As for my project, I decompose the art pieces into pixels which forms a low-resolution version of the original painting. When determine the value of the painting, it can be affected by its history value, painter as well as the techniques used and many more. By turning the painting into pixelated images, I am eliminating the details of the paining but rather focus on the image as a whole. As a result, this causes the images devaluate.