Friday, October 20, 2006

Cameras and Blue Jacket Night

Last night was another Blue Jacket night and another lovely evening of conversation and libation. As long as I have gone to these meetings, which in the scheme of things has not been a long time, there has been a struggle between those who want to document the entire night on film (Chris Meadows) and those who don't want it documented (everyone else, as far as I can tell). Now, Chris has done a lot of good with his camera, and I think everyone acknowledges this about him. Yet, the novelty of having one's picture taken wears off quickly. And as a scientist, Chris wants a full explanation of why the group doesn't want its picture taken. This is where the problem arises. No one really can give a good, full, or meaningful explanation of why picture taking is so off putting. Well, right here on this post I am going to try to explicate these matters in such a way that it will be fully articulated and iron-clad. I want to be clear that the following treatise is not one written against Chris. Truthfully, his picture taking never does more than kindle a mild but good-hearted and sporadic annoyance. What is at heart of the matter is the absence of delineation on the subject. I will attempt to fill this void with the following.

First, picture taking is great for events such as German fest, special family functions, artful purposes, and the like. Claire and I were just discussing these purposes last night. However, taking pictures at a weekly gathering with the same group of people seems to break the intimacy of the atmosphere. This is a place where we go to shed the albatrosses of daily work, school, and home life, a place where we do not have to be "on." But having a picture taken negates this experience. Suddenly we have to interrupt our current engagements in order to present ourselves to the world with courteous, respectable, recognizable, and overly gleeful expressions. In other words, we must switch back "on," and we are left to transition back to a more natural state on our own. By that time, our interactions have been exposed and we are fully aware that we are being watched and documented. There really is no way to be our normal candid selves after this. Even if one pretends that the camera isn't there, it still alters one's actions through the act of pretending. Thus, a wedge is driven between us by the camera, and the amiable closeness we seek from one another is shattered.

Second, the camera does not just drive a wedge between those who are having their picture taken. It also creates a barrier between Chris and us. Many people say that smoking, among other things, is a defense mechanism employed in order to keep others from getting too close. The camera acts in the same way. If Chris is behind the camera, then he is completely removed from the group function. Thus, we start performing separate actions and lose cohesion with him. Chris becomes the seer and we become the visible objects, but the relationship is not reciprocal. The lack of mutual, interdependent communication separates Chris from us and prevents us from getting too close to him.

Finally, the presence of the camera at Blue Jacket Night creates a sense of hyperreality that is unneeded and, ultimately, unwanted. Pictures are used as ways to somehow augment our experience or, in other words, augment our reality by means of better memories of events. Yet, this hyperreality is actually a distortion of the events that actually happened. For example, our Blue Jacket experience becomes less about relating with friends and more about the representations of the relations with our friends, which are the pictures. As soon as the pictures take precedence, our actions cease to be real and become hyperreal or distorted. This distortion alters our entire actuality to the point that our relations never take place as they normally would. From here, the pictures start to signify our experience, when really they mean nothing; just as the cross would mean nothing without Christ's crucifixion.

The above are my reasons for not wanting excessive amounts of pictures taken at Blue Jacket Night. I hope that they were articulate enough. Though they cannot represent the feelings of all participants, I have tried to cover the main arguments. If you have something to add, dispute, or refute, please post a comment. Furthermore, if you have any comments about the nature of photography in general, please make a comment. Finally, what was posted above should not be taken too seriously. I was just toying with some ideas that were brought up by last night's discussion, and I really don't mind Chris taking pictures. The most important part is that I like Blue Jacket Night and I enjoy the company of all who go there. The friendship and camaraderie is invaluable.

4 comments:

David said...

First of all, I want to state the obvious: this post is the final proof, for those who had refused to admit it, that Monica is the BlogMaster(TM).

All her arguments are well reasoned, thoroughly fleshed out, and clearly articulated. But, that said, I still find a perverse pleasure in knowning that my night is being documented. In fact, I can remember in late high school I used to carry a video camera to parties and selectively shoot so as to concoct a highly entertaining and distorted vision of the night's events. The resulting movie was not so much a way of remembering, but an entirely new experience to enjoy.

In my opinion, this is the true beauty of the camera. If one sets out to reflect reality and eternalize it, he is only fooling himself because this is not possible. The appropriate use of a camera is to create something new--a false representation of events that is obvious in its falseness. In other words a camera's proper use is creative and not mimetic.

But the smokers have no excuse. As the pope has famously said, "Good Catholics don't use tobacco" (Oratio Numquam Dicta).

Anonymous said...

First of all I want to acknowledge how sad it is that I am posting this at 10:45 on a Friday night. My husband is coaching first round of sectionals (they lost), the boys are at Gammer's, and me and Maggie are kickin' it old school- Budweiser and breast milk.... party hard, ladies!!

After having caught up with all your extremely clever blogs, Monica, I am wondering a number of things...

1. I don't think I am witty enough to keep up with the comments section... all the brain cells that remember things like who Sir Walter Raleigh is died during pregnancy.

2. Does your husband not realize that the Blue Jackets meet in a bar and he should stop crying like a baby about the smokers- I'm thinking of buying a pack especially for him and chain smoking all next Thursday!

3. Why for the love of all that is sacred and holy did you think I would have a party and not serve alcohol... lots of alcohol? Are my hostessing skills so far gone that anyone would consider it a remote possibility?

Anyway, I look forward to reading much more of your lovely little musings... and perhaps commenting on them in my own little amusing way. (I'm funny, I know I'm funny-people laugh at me all the time!!!)

Love,
Mary

David said...

I see Mary is taking my advice of Thursday night to heart and is now trying to offend me! Well, I hadn't even noticed she smoked, to tell you the truth (due to the gender segregation of a large part of the evening), but now I'm afraid I must class her with the other nice people who sadly miss the true doctrine on this one point.

Also, what is this bizarre idea I hear so much that bars are made for smoking (and I say this as a former pack-a-day smoker)? Now if this was Hookah! I could understand. I suppose I will just have to accept the smoke or leave my blue jacket on its hook. But the strong arm of the law is coming, my friends, and the winds are blowing in the direction of us non-smokers (and it smells so clean and pure!).

M LO said...

Mary- (1)I am positive that you are witty enough to post comments on this blog. I've have seen your wit in action many times and have noticed its razor sharpness.

(2)Yes, I agree. Non-smokers should put up or shut up in a bar situation. I'm sure David and I would even join you in a smoke if our lungs were not composed of brown paper, cotton balls, and other highly absorbant and puncturable materials. I'm sure our kids will have to live in bubbles because of our genes.

(3) I'm not sure why I thought you would have an alcohol free party. I think back then I had a different idea about what it meant to go to a grown-up married people's party. Now that i've been married for much longer (5 whole months), I know better. And it was a lovely party.

David- I agree completely. If a camera is being used for creative purposes, then I have no problem. I would never deny the artistic capabilities of cinematography or photography. It is when mimetic purposes take over that I have a problem. And as far as I can tell, Chris is trying for mimesis. And, as we have both pointed out, this is futile.