Virilio and Minh-Ha on Reality and representation

Virilio tries to express reality through speed of light and time. How the speed of light affects our notion of reality, the fact that we perceive every incidence not at the very moment it occurs; the idea of trans-appearance, and how time plays an important role in our perception rather than the space. Therefore the speed of light which is related to time is more important than the light itself in the way we conceive the reality of appearances. And that is why the image is what Virilio calls shadow of time, referring to Plato.

Virilio also cites Walter Benjamin’s idea of “aura” and discusses how technology made us so close to the things that we are no longer affected by them. We are trying our best to develop systems of control where we are able to do everything simultaneously without necessary being present in different spaces, and here is the notion of mobility which doesn’t necessarily refers to space.

Minh-Ha argues how we are subjective and the technology is absolutely objective; that is why when we hide technology as much as possible, the images we are presenting become far more detached from the reality.

Discussing Minh-Ha, why do we think that the reality is neutral? Can the reality itself be biased as well? Reality, Being untouched and raw whether it may seem biased, is neutral.

Also, if “a bad shot is guaranteed of authenticity" then is a beautiful piece of art, even if it is reflecting reality, always a lie?

Image, Technology and Political Economy

With the emergence of new technologies and the developments in reproduction, “Image” acquired a whole new definition, which no longer maintained the notion of its physical component, and considered the mass production means.

Reproduction has always existed, but with new technologies it has entered a new level. Digital imaging, along with Internet, has created a shift in the visual culture, by providing the easiest reproduction and access tools. A reproduction, no matter how accurate and perfect it is, comparing to its original, lacks an element which Walter Benjamin calls “aura.” The fact that the reproduced image is no longer present in time and space, specially in the digital world where it may even not have a physical existence. (Benjamin, 50)

One of things that make the original, for instance a painting, valuable is its uniqueness. The “aura” of the original, what gives it its cult value, is its oneness, and also the phenomena of “distance.”(Benjamin, 52) Mainly due to its inaccessibility, the original always tends to keep this “distance” with its viewer, even though s/he might be physically close to it.

But with the digital technology where the copy is absolutely identical with the original, the original becomes a copy where at the same time all copies can be considered original. On the top of that is Internet where all these originals are distributed, and can be accessed easily. So the question is that in such a system, does there still exist a notion of “aura.”

The other thing, that has been redefined frequently, after the appearance of digital imaging and Internet, is copyright. Once protecting the uniqueness of an image, now it has entered a whole new level. Images can easily be stored in personal computers and there are such a great amount of users that tracking everybody down, is impossible. The new technology enables the masses to get what they want without the involvement of any power structure or economic corporation. It has created a situation where the visuals can reach anybody in anywhere without passing through the filtering process of capital, and propaganda. It is for this reason that countries like China or Iran limited their people’s access to Internet.