7 letters written to myself with the message "Don't trust Royal Mail".
2 posted and opened when returned
2 posted and unopened when returned
1 posted and in the mail system at the time photo was taken
1 not posted and left sealed
1 letter about to written and put in envelope to be posted
5 comments:
I really like the photograph - but I'm not sure whether my reasons have anything to do with the concept.
It's something about the suspension of the folded bit of paper - caught mid air. It somehow makes it into a film still, when in fact the rest of the photo is a very static scene. The fact that it hasn't come to rest yet makes me aware of the before and after of the moment the photo was taken, without including any elements that you would normally associated with movement.
For me, that's what's interesting about it - and I guess that references the fact that this is a process rather than an outcome.
How does it all relate to the issue of trust though?
wow, i didn't even think of the photo being a film still, especially with the folded paper suspension. i hadn't resolved this as a photograph. my intention was for the envelopes to be physical pieces in an exhibition. so what you have said about the photograph is interesting.
when you asked me "how does it all relate to the issue of trust?" do you mean, how do your observations on the photograph relate to trust?
the concept relates to trust because i am sending a message of distrust (ie. "don't trust royal mail") by means in which, if it is sucessfully delivered, discredits the message.
the ways in which we are informed are the same or only ways we can discount the information. it's a paradigm? or condition.
Ah, I see.
So in that respect it's a scientific experiment I guess. We are not prepared to accept a statement as truth unless we can see empirical evidence. But would we accept that we can 'trust' Royal Mail if one letter was delivered as intended? Or do we need more? Do we need an expert opinion?! The publication of the related statistics is interesting in this context too.
I've just been reading this book actually that touches on some of this stuff. It goes on about how notions of philosophical truth changed over the 18th and 19th Centuries in line with a shift in our relationship to the sense of vision. We learned that we can't just believe our eyes, because our eyes can be tricked; thus we needed to find other ways of defining truth.
It's called 'Techniques of the Observer' by Jonathan Crary if you're interested.
Thanks for the hot tip - Crary is proving very helpful!!
He also looks into the development of certain optical devices like the camera obscura and the stereoscope not just as instruments of visuality, but as larger rationalizations for reshaping the human faculty of sight.
Like we make things (machines?) to extend our selves/bodies and these then entirely change our perceptions! maybe this is what the internet is doing
Post a Comment