Take time to read the Steyerl text first then answer questions below.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
- Steyerl says that the situation of the poor image “reveals the conditions of their marginalization, the constellation of social forces leading to their online circulation as poor images.” What do you think she mean by this? In what ways might the poor image tell us about its own existence?
- Dig into Steyerl’s comparison of the dematerialization of the poor image to the dematerialization of the art object in the legacy of conceptual art. How does this work?
- What’s all this stuff in section five about “visual bonds”? What did Vertov see as powerful in this idea? Steyerl says that the poor image creates visual bonds and later says that visual bonds “possibly create disruptive movements of thought and affect.” How does this point back to the question of interruption in our Verwoert/Abreu discussion?
- How does adding to the world of images by documenting and disseminating an artwork change under the lens of this essay? Toying with her model, does the gallery relate to the idea of a flagship store? Does that make the internet closer to DVD rips, broadcast television? What about really nice, high resolution documentation?
- How does the idea of the poor image relate to our move to online coursework? Could it be argued that we are trafficking almost exclusively in poor images? Are we making visual bonds?
- How are these two different types of images we are currently engaging with (documentation of artwork and online classes) the same or different from each other? What’s the verdict: are they poor images?
0 comments