 |
| Surveillance Video of BP's Deep Horizon Oil Spill |
I chose this image instead of the images illustrating the environmental impact of BP's folly (oil-drenched wildlife, oil-drenched clean up crews, the isle of oil, etc.) for a couple of reasons. This image strikes me, because it is a microsecond of ongoing footage. For those that are familiar with it, it recalls a timeline that lasted weeks. It might even recall the narrative (almost a saga to some).
The second reason is that this follows the tradition of surveillance video. In surveillance, video feeds are created for just a handful of individuals to monitor. They're pieces of technical communication. Typically, these feeds aren't meant to record history for the consumption of the general public. They are meant to signal response (relief or panic or pursuit). This one did record history. Most interesting to me, we were not in control of this feed. We had to fight to even get a high-def version of the underwater spillage. In a sense, we got to watch it, or they let us watch it. BP's surveillance system was reappropriated to show us the extent of their mistake.
I am not much of a news junkie, but I spent a good deal of time watching this video. Then, one day, I didn't. When it was capped, the camera tuned. In the case of this camera, the owner turned it away from themselves.
Questions
Is this still image of a surveillance video an icon? It wouldn't look good on a postage stamp. In a lot of ways, it is a bad image. Still, it is representative of a moment in history, and evokes a range of responses about a time and place.
This might touch on the purpose/function question.
When the engineer designed the camera and the frame of the shot, splicing the image into national television coverage probably wasn't on the forefront of his mind. His feed was repurposed. Can that make it inauthentic, and more so, is authenticity between purpose and function an issue? I do not know. I hope someone does.
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteYou have beaten me to the BP punch (hehehe). I intend to use an image of the BP oil spill for our first project. I was intrigued by your question about the images possible iconic status.
While it, as you so eloquently put it, wouldn't necessarily look good on a postage stamp, it does seem to document the incident in a rather unique fashion. Other images might be more suited for iconic status, yet this leads us to question what makes an image iconic. Capturing a moment in a prophetic manner? Frequent usage?
As for your purpose/function question, this one is still perplexing for me. If we take purpose to be correlated with intention, obviously this image has been "repurposed," as you say. Yet a variety of images have been used in a way that we would not consider their original intention. Does that necessarily make them inauthentic? I'd lean towards a NO answer to that question, but I have a difficult time articulating why. This question definitely opens up a lot of avenues to explore.
I'm also using an image of the post-oil spill for our first project, though the one I've chosen is (possibly) markedly different from many of the others we expect when we think of the photos of BP's mess.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the iconic status of these photographs on the whole, I wonder if there is one that stands out to us collectively. We have seen that "Ground Zero Spirit" has reached iconic status. So I'd like to ask the members of our class, which photo of the BP oil spill will reach/has reached that status? Has one in particular done so to date? Is there one that comes to mind first when you think of the spill? If not, why not? If so, why that image? Is there any image of the spill that is suitable for a postage stamp? Are there postage stamps commemorating other American mistakes that come to mind (by which I mean, are they presented as mistakes--reminders that history must not repeat itself?--or are such stamps presented with the rhetorical purpose of illustrating the American resolve that we can overcome and/or rise above our mistakes?
I would agree with Bruce on the question of authenticity. I don't think using an image for something other than its intended purpose makes it inauthentic. If anything, I think the image becomes more authentic because it was not created specifically for television purposes. The image is being repurposed for television, but the creation of the image was made authentically. If the image was created specifically for television, then I might be weary of its authenticity. If the creator was commissioned to create the image by the television company, he or she may have the creative license to distort the truth to fit the television network's purposes. However, since the image was taken from a seemingly unbiased source (an uninterrupted surveillance camera), it seems that the image wouldn't be distorted or inauthentic.
ReplyDelete