Blogistan and the Camera's Gaze
There is a flipside to a militaristic society of control and surveillance. The panopticism and ever-presence of the camera works power both ways. We ought to know that the camera is a neutral instrument. The cameras posted on the streetlights are balanced by the camera that filmed the Rodney King beating. State surveillance is met with the call for demonstrators of the WTO/FTAA to bring with them cameras to document police brutality. Indymedia produced the documentary "The Miami Model" out of these clips (the public premier of the documentary was raided by the NYPD; the FBI and US Secret Service is also harassing the website hosts for indymedia.org). There is evidence already of a kind of "politics of the gaze" as to who is allowed to take photos on the streets, in public, in commercial venues, etc. - and who may not.
What does the politics of the gaze have to do with free speech? This is a tough question. What kind of freedom is being violated by my not being allowed to document my surroundings? In other words, why was a friend of mine kicked out of the mall for taking photos? - and does this have anything to do with not being allowed to pass out political flyers there?
The politics of the gaze have very much to do with independent journalism - especially in times of war. Those not embedded with the U.S. military were viewed as fair game. It was even desirable for those in power that these journalists be shot down to prevent any free-range gazing.
A toned-down medium, the blog, is testing the limits of gaze politics. The original war blog was perhaps journalist Christopher Allbritton and his Back to Iraq blog. Unhitching himself from any corporate media enterprise, Allbritton raised $25,000 to spend some time on the ground after the invasion.
In Blogistan, soldiers themselves are testing the limits of the right to gaze/speak. This is getting tricky. The military is experimenting with allowing freedom, but it's beginning to show its slip. The first real conflict is the case of Al Lorentz, a 20-year commissioned officer on the ground in Iraq, who expressed grave reservations not about the ethics or legality of the war, but simply about the military's chances of winning what he surmises is a highly coordinated guerilla war. Now he's looking at 20 years in the can.
It is becoming clear that technology has made time much more "real". That is, the distance between the gaze and the ability to broadcast it to the world has evaporated. Has it become easier or more difficult to monitor and control information flow? How far are we from mandated "Loose Lips Sink Ships" desktop wallpaper? And, in the end, is there really a difference between witnessing and witnessing? Has there ever been?
What does the politics of the gaze have to do with free speech? This is a tough question. What kind of freedom is being violated by my not being allowed to document my surroundings? In other words, why was a friend of mine kicked out of the mall for taking photos? - and does this have anything to do with not being allowed to pass out political flyers there?
The politics of the gaze have very much to do with independent journalism - especially in times of war. Those not embedded with the U.S. military were viewed as fair game. It was even desirable for those in power that these journalists be shot down to prevent any free-range gazing.
A toned-down medium, the blog, is testing the limits of gaze politics. The original war blog was perhaps journalist Christopher Allbritton and his Back to Iraq blog. Unhitching himself from any corporate media enterprise, Allbritton raised $25,000 to spend some time on the ground after the invasion.
In Blogistan, soldiers themselves are testing the limits of the right to gaze/speak. This is getting tricky. The military is experimenting with allowing freedom, but it's beginning to show its slip. The first real conflict is the case of Al Lorentz, a 20-year commissioned officer on the ground in Iraq, who expressed grave reservations not about the ethics or legality of the war, but simply about the military's chances of winning what he surmises is a highly coordinated guerilla war. Now he's looking at 20 years in the can.
It is becoming clear that technology has made time much more "real". That is, the distance between the gaze and the ability to broadcast it to the world has evaporated. Has it become easier or more difficult to monitor and control information flow? How far are we from mandated "Loose Lips Sink Ships" desktop wallpaper? And, in the end, is there really a difference between witnessing and witnessing? Has there ever been?
posted by thebaffler at 9:23 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home