Street Ghosts
September 3, 2024 12:16 AM Subscribe
In this artwork, photos of people found on Google Street View were posted at the same physical locations from where they were taken. Life-size posters were printed in color, cut along the outlines, and then affixed to the walls of public buildings at the precise spot where they appear in Google Street View. This project revealed aesthetic, biopolitical, economic, and legal issues concerning privacy, copyright, and visual perception, which can be explored through the artist's theoretical considerations. The artwork re-contextualized ready-made informational material, and reenacted a social conflict: ghostly human bodies appear as casualties of the info-war in the city, a transitory record of collateral damage from the battle between corporations, governments, civilians, and algorithms over public and private information.
I want to like these, because I think the idea itself is neat, and I think it does have something to say about how and why we record and remember the world and on the other hand, that artist statement makes me want to absolutely hate them. So far the art is winning over the artist statement, but it's a close run thing.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:40 AM on September 3 [4 favorites]
posted by jacquilynne at 6:40 AM on September 3 [4 favorites]
What is it about the artist's statement that you find so objectionable?
posted by Reverend John at 8:45 AM on September 3 [1 favorite]
posted by Reverend John at 8:45 AM on September 3 [1 favorite]
Ironically, perhaps, the photos of the art itself (go to the map, look at a pin for links to both the original street view image and the associated art image) are 404, because...they are in Picasa (which Google retired)
posted by stevil at 8:48 AM on September 3 [1 favorite]
posted by stevil at 8:48 AM on September 3 [1 favorite]
Making a statement about how easy it is to invade someone's privacy by invading someone's privacy, ick. They're not "ghosts," they're real people who didn't consent to be part of some guy's project. I show up on Google street images at least once, and I would be disturbed if someone posted a life-size photo of me at that intersection.
posted by The corpse in the library at 9:11 AM on September 3 [2 favorites]
posted by The corpse in the library at 9:11 AM on September 3 [2 favorites]
What is it about the artist's statement that you find so objectionable?
I mean most of it is a general aversion to artists' statements. I later clicked through to the 'theoretical considerations' and I hated those much less than the more general summary that's mostly quoted here.
I often find artists' statements are very careful to talk about 'issues raised' (or 'revealed' in this case) in a way that makes it pretty clear what side of the issue the artist is on but without ever plainly stating the issue or the artists' position, because if they flat out admitted that the point was 'corporate surveillance state is bad, mmkay' everyone would realize that their art wasn't actually offering deep insight.
The summary does that here, but the more detailed explanation is much clearer about what the artist thinks is bad and I find that more honest, if not more deeper.
That said, corpse in the library's point also bothers me. 'I am going to demonstrate how these people have had their privacy violated by further violating their privacy' is, you know, not that great. It reminds me in a distant way of Jon Ronson's NY Times article about Justine Sacco -- he talks about how she didn't want to be Internet famous anymore but doesn't at any point grapple with the thought that maybe a feature length piece about her in the NY Times was not going to help her.
If the artist statement grappled with the question of whether what the artist was doing was revictimizing the same people it describes as victim, I would like it even more.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:43 AM on September 3 [5 favorites]
I mean most of it is a general aversion to artists' statements. I later clicked through to the 'theoretical considerations' and I hated those much less than the more general summary that's mostly quoted here.
I often find artists' statements are very careful to talk about 'issues raised' (or 'revealed' in this case) in a way that makes it pretty clear what side of the issue the artist is on but without ever plainly stating the issue or the artists' position, because if they flat out admitted that the point was 'corporate surveillance state is bad, mmkay' everyone would realize that their art wasn't actually offering deep insight.
The summary does that here, but the more detailed explanation is much clearer about what the artist thinks is bad and I find that more honest, if not more deeper.
That said, corpse in the library's point also bothers me. 'I am going to demonstrate how these people have had their privacy violated by further violating their privacy' is, you know, not that great. It reminds me in a distant way of Jon Ronson's NY Times article about Justine Sacco -- he talks about how she didn't want to be Internet famous anymore but doesn't at any point grapple with the thought that maybe a feature length piece about her in the NY Times was not going to help her.
If the artist statement grappled with the question of whether what the artist was doing was revictimizing the same people it describes as victim, I would like it even more.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:43 AM on September 3 [5 favorites]
Trendy! But I'll take Wesselmann
posted by Czjewel at 10:10 AM on September 3 [1 favorite]
posted by Czjewel at 10:10 AM on September 3 [1 favorite]
I agree The corpse in the library, this isn't journalism, yetthese are recognisable people in their recognisable neighhoods. This is use of these people's images without an image license. It's the worst form of 'artistic' parasitism.
I was taught how to think about parasatising the economic surface of a place but this is not that. I think all that the artist 'exposes' here is that they have a parasocial approach to people as people.
A lot of artist statements are so self-consciously blithely ignorant to the harm they are causing.
posted by unearthed at 2:20 AM on September 4 [1 favorite]
I was taught how to think about parasatising the economic surface of a place but this is not that. I think all that the artist 'exposes' here is that they have a parasocial approach to people as people.
A lot of artist statements are so self-consciously blithely ignorant to the harm they are causing.
posted by unearthed at 2:20 AM on September 4 [1 favorite]
« Older SEIU: 1,845,500 members; AFT: 1,732,808 members | Modern Crocodiles Are Evolving at a Rapid Rate Newer »
posted by HearHere at 1:21 AM on September 3 [1 favorite]