fuck off
Out of context: Reply #25
- Started
- Last post
- 851 Responses
- francoisfido0
IF in television—a country who equips itself with the necessary transmitters and technology to go in for television, begins to spray or flood the territory which it declares its own. Not having it's own programmes, it goes into debt culturally and financially to its neighbours, close or distant, who already possess the same system of spraying or flooding.
THEN on the internet—an individual who equips themselves with the necessary technology (website, tool or technique) from which it begins to spray and flood. Not having their own programme, they go into debt culturally to their neighbors, close or distant, who already possess the same system of spraying and flooding.
=
'Before sending out an image, perhaps we should ask what image, or an image of what?'With the democratization of image-making, publishing and broadcasting it has become imperative for auto-critical modes to be considered. Online formats have become flooded with content born of negligible aesthetic judgement—notoriety cultivated not by value but scandal, with huge audiences feeding this kind of replication. If the public is now at the 'crossing point between the departure and arrival of information', it can only be up to them to criticize each other. If it is true that 'information in general has something to do with cancer', then we are sick with diseased forms of information, spreading across the web's entire surface and entering our own bodies in the form of fundamentally crippled methods.
It is possible however that this technology provides us with an ideal environment for those to create content which breaks the binding spell of media domination, a parallel stream of user-generated content which is not fatally reductive or blatantly spectacular. The representation of this editorial inversion is now critically at stake.