iphone formatted New Yorker URL

Quell and the Qualification of the term "Photographer".

Ages ago, I went to see the photographer Nikki S. Lee give a lecture about her newest project, The Hispanic Project. For those not familiar with Ms. Lee, she’s an artist who immerses herself into a subculture (whether it be Lesbians, Lindy Hoppers or Punks) and when she feels she’s become completely assimilated into that particular culture, she has photos taken of her with her newfound community. She then quits the scene for her next project.
Artistic criticisms aside, one of the most interesting points of discussion to come up in the follow-up Q&A did not revolve around Ms. Lee’s assumptions about the mutability of identity, but the fact that she chose to label herself a “photographer”. While the end result of her projects were indeed photographic evidence of her participation, she was not behind, but in front of, the lens.
This debate is far from contained or resolved: what, exactly, qualifies one as a photographer? Is it technical skill, like Ansel Adams, or is it simply using the photograph as a medium for the way you see the world (like Terry Richardson, for example)?
Such questions arise with Quell, a new photo series from Brian M. Cassidy and Melanie Shatzky, the creative duo behind Pigeon Projects (editorial disclaimer: Brian is my cousin). Quell is a series of low-resolution, noisy images of people (teenagers, mostly) undergoing a sort of voluntary asphyxiation. But the catch is this – Mr. Cassidy and Ms. Shatzky did not take these photos or witness these events. They are screen-captured stills from videos freely posted to YouTube.
“Within the countless hours of crudely captured and degraded self-documentation, we have selected moments in which violence, grace, eroticism and tenderness converge into solitary and painterly images.”
But the question Quell brings up, along with a beautiful, hollow window into the bored and risky lives of it’s subjects, is this: Is this Photography? Are Mr. Cassidy and Ms. Shatzky, in this role, photographers? Or is this something else, some new breed of artistic curation that simply uses the still image as its conduit?
Perhaps the thing I like most about this new series is that it defies that easy codification, not just in style, but where it fits into an entire history and continuum.

Another Office

The Chaos in Your Head

Neuroscience and networks, two topics I can’t resist.

And here they are all wrapped together in an article about how your brain constantly walks on the edge of chaos . Apparently, the chaotic cascades inside your head are what drives intelligence and people who let chaos take over more often (though not too much) are smarter (at least from an IQ perspective).

The neuronal avalanches that Beggs investigated, for example, are perfect for transmitting information across the brain. If the brain was in a more stable state, these avalanches would die out before the message had been transmitted. If it was chaotic, each avalanche could swamp the brain.

Oh, and apparently your brain has 13 degrees of separation. Who knew?

COMMENTS OPEN

IP Trial Strategy: Buying Tivo's Bull

IP Trial Strategy: Buying Tivo’s Bull : Man, Marshall, Texas is weird. It seems wrong such a small town so heavily influences patent law in this country. And that people buy prize winning steers as part of the process. THE FUTURE.

Oh hey. The Netflix prize got beaten. Or won. Or completed. Or...

Oh hey. The Netflix prize got beaten. Or won. Or completed. Or whatever. Cool.

Winning Teams Join to Qualify for $1 Million Netflix Prize | Epicenter | Wired.com

Formal Friday Salute: R.I.P.

August 29, 1958 – June 25, 2009

The Value of Shared Information

A few weeks ago I pointed out a study that explained, “groups tend to spend most of their time discussing the information shared by members, which is therefore redundant, rather than discussing information known only to one or a minority of members.”

Today I ran across some research on how celebrities stay popular for so long that sheds further light on the subject. Essentially people talk about more famous people more because it’s a social lubricant to have a shared topic, therefore making the famous more famous.

I’ve been spending some time thinking about how you break this cycle. Especially at work, it’s important to share ideas that everyone doesn’t know about yet as they may hold information that could push things forward in new ways. No answers yet, but it’s interesting to think about.

COMMENTS OPEN