||layering in TV and
Today virtually everything can be related to everything, a thing which
hypotetically and partly practically already happens on the level
of data anyway. So it is to ask what kind of influences this has on
the process of signification for encoding and decoding ....and then
again the process of recoding.
As already pointed out before here are different directions, which
have to be taken into regard, especially the one of recoding from
various sources and in very different contexts.
|Thus at the same time, what
comes as an image today not only is more or less pixelated, but has
embedded signs or icons, texts or other markers, intending very different
significations. These are ranging from textlines, icons and comic-like
speechballons to cross-hairs of smart-bomb monitors or the time-code
lines of surveillance camera transmissions. Partly they obviously
ask to be objective signs of evidence. When before the screen of transmission
was somehow equivalent to the the seen image, this now usually is
not the case anymore.
1 in 'Schnittstelle', p.121
windows and various forms of information messages are not only common
on computer monitors, but as well on TV screens, on surveillance monitors,
and so on. 'Conventionality and artificiality of the inherent meanings
to one segment of perception concerned with communication have been
becoming that abstract and distributed that the change was unnoticed:
the suspicion of manipulation is concerning the assumed intention
of the informant and not the extremely unlikely colonialism of perception
through a even more subtle and independent communication.'1
2 'Korrespondenzen', p.200
Holert, Tom quoting M.de Certeau
|Today the decision
on which criteria of an image or better of its transmission (in the
sense of performative strategies) perception of authenticity relies
obviously has been becoming more important than its depiction. Thus
the view on perception frames the depicted image. What to say with
Eventhough we are still mainly convinced that only 'that can be believed
in what can be seen'2 , it is no longer
easily to be said what can be seen. The delegation of perception has
made it impossible to determine the evidence by the visible clearly.
The invention of various strategies to produce authenticity as some
years agao amateurs, video activists, artists or filmakers (dogma)
used to practice, now have been taken up by mainstream media.
Some similarity can be seen in the increasing use of videomaterial
especially of surveillance cameras in various media contexts, which
mainly show no other evidence then the imprinted timecode. (see check-in3
*911 or Spiegel 17/02
Djerba*). Here also appears a correspondence to the scientific
or operational imaginery, operating on a different level, but also
usualy not readable and thus needing interpretation.
||Even the news
were not produced or transmitted in a single, eventhough many people
claim, that those images just were convincing. But they probably did
not recognize how colonized the making of our point of views has become.
Anyway it is exactly this same assemblage, this constant flow of images,
which on the other side is asking for new modes of reading, for a
new interpretation of the image. (movie)
More on this will follow in the further chapters.
and another bad and low
tech evidence mov
(* no longer free accessible)
Besides the wellknown main media sources only a few links here:
The Manipulated Image
further links on new modes for images follow in coded readings.