It started by accident. Like so many other things, serendipity stepped in, and nudged a course correction.
Some argue that because it can capture motion the moving picture is more reflective of real life, while the still photograph is an abstraction, an instant frozen in time, and thus may be a more mental experience as it allows one time to examine and reflect on a specific moment.
I had paused the TV and when I looked I saw a most humorous expression on the announcer’s face. An image extracted from the flow and now frozen in time. Submerged in the stream of 24 frames per second, it was imperceptible. It was also an unintended view; an expression completely tangential of the context, one suggesting a contemplation of something warm and pleasant; a bath perhaps, rather than the political discourse underway. This frozen instant, now held forever in the photograph, that could be examined and reflected upon. Did this image capture what was really going on? Was it the real truth or was it simply a decontextualised frame from a different truth expressed more correctly and completely in the stream. Yet they were so different: how could the two co-exist?
It became a game: pause the feed and see what comes up. It was surprising the frequency of odd and humorous expressions. Through the remote control I was not only able to control the TV, but also the expression on the announcer’s face.
I found news and political TV the most interesting as expressions could be found to complement or contradict the captioning. In doing so I began to realise I was able to extract a frame for my own agenda. I was appropriating a news stream into an artwork to tell a different story. I was leveraging the perceived truth inherent in all photographs to enhance the worthiness of my own agenda. Is this fair game or a misappropriation?
[previous | next]