Chapter 5: Visual technologies, image reproduction, and the copy

    Chapter five discussed how reproduction gets factored into the equation in different ways in visual culture.
     What I found interesting was how the discussion is started off in the book, instead of zeroing in on a specific technology (such as the camera) as being the the instigator of change in the world, the authors focus on how visual technologies emerge out of specific social and contexts instead of certain technology. As Marita Sturken and Lisa Cartwright state, "technology itself does not determine social change" (184). For example, photography rose to being a popular visual technology because it fit certain social concepts and needs at the time, not just because of its creation.
    The first area that was investigated was the rise of visual technologies of motion. As in the late nineteenth century, there was a desire to visualize movement. With the idea of depicting motion using sequences of images shot in quick succession, these images could be used within the scientific context. By breaking down "real" motion into a series of photos, the locomotion of a subject could be analyzed. This would be a great tool in this regard, as it opened up the possibility of further analysis of a subject. I'm curious how motion studies depicting humans unclothed, were received by the general public of time, as this certainly overstepped many social norms as being pornographic. Although I suppose that given the context that these studies were meant to be examined through the scientific lens, maybe this wasn't as taboo or simply not put on display for the masses.These photographic images that showcased movement helped make the way for the introduction of cinema.
    Despite the numerous technologies that came before, one could make the argument that motion pictures didn't come into their own until the late nineteenth/early twentieth century. Whereas you had individualized experiences of cinematic viewing through devices like Thomas Edison
s kine scope, the first motion pictures to be displayed with a projector for group viewing wouldn't be ready for several years. New ideas made there way during the rise in popularity in motion pictures, with creators coming up with new techniques to be used in films. These included narrative techniques such as inter cutting two scenes taking place at the same time in order to give the spectator a sense of being in both places at once. Another example would be the cutting between two characters to indicate an exchange of dialogue between them. These kinds of techniques survived through the years and are still used in much the same way today. These visual technologies of photography and cinemas brought in complex new modes of representation that would then shift again with the creation of electronic media forms such as television. These new forms of visual technology built on the codes of the previous technologies that came before them. These new technologies would also have an effect on many facets of images as creations, such as their value in the monetary sense as well as their cultural value.
     For much of history of images, it has been the case that original, uncopied work has been dominant. Value is one of the biggest factors in the status of reproduction, originals, and copies. When produced in a series or many forms, a work of art is generally accepted to be limited value. The ability to easily reproduce a unique work of fine art in the photographic era changed the way that value is assigned to an piece in the art market. For example, the market for fine-art original paintings is still high, even though photographic copies can be made cheaply for mass distribution. In this case, the original maintains its value in the market, regardless of how close the reproduction come to looking exactly like the original.
    It is interesting that despite its ability to produce perfect images of something "that has been" and the creation of aesthetically pleasing images via camera, it took a long time for the photograph to be accepted in the fine art market. This was because the idea original works continued to be prevalent in the art community, as the photographic media as a form was still connected to the mechanical nature of its creation.
    While on the concept of the original, it is important to note the ideas of Walter Benjamin, a German critic of the twentieth century who was associated with the mid-century German political theorists collectively dubbed the Frankfurt School (Sturken Cartwright 194).His view that in the case of photography and motion pictures, there was no original work, but instead there was a series of copies that stood at the same level in place of the original work. Benjamin made the argument that the result of mechanical reproduction was to make a substantial change to the function of art. "Instead of being based on ritual, [art] begins to be based on another practice-politics", Benjamin states (Sturken Cartwright 199). The ability for easy reproduction meant that images with political meaning could be distributed to many places simultaneously. This would be a powerful tool for both the creation of propaganda, or as a tool for making political statements or criticisms. Image reproduction would also raise issues about the copyright, intellectual property, and what it meant to be an owner of the image.
     The capability for reproduction of any image are dependant on the legal management of images as forms of intellectual property. Laws dealing with copyright are used not just to regulate the flow of copies, but also shape ideas about what makes for a legitimate use of a copy and what is instead an infraction of ownership rights. At what point is the right to an image protected by law? Copyright literally mean "the right to copy", and doesn't point to a specific right but instead to a collection of rights. This include things such as the right to distribute, produce, copy, display, perform, create, and control derivative works based on the original creation. After reading through the rest of the section, I have to say that copyrights can appear to be a bit messy, as determining whether a creation is trans formative of an original and therefore acceptable can seem difficult.