The ‘Stolen’ Scream
Written by John MacphersonMadeleine’s controversial post has attracted considerable attention, and fostered a lot of discussion. I think that’s a good thing. I’m not jumping into the fray, but I wanted to highlight something really important (I feel). And it’s the notion of such ‘iconic’ images as Aranda’s being used for ‘promotional’ purposes out of their original (news) context, for example – as many respondents have mentioned – by other bands such as RATM and their use of the flaming monk and so on.
But there’s one difference I think. We are now living in a digital age where the dissemination of information is far easier, quicker and more global than ever before. And there was no notion of things going ‘viral’ in the early 1990’s when RATM used the burning monk image, ‘viral’ then would more likely be a medical phenomenon than a social one. Times have changed. Now ‘icons’ are created not necessarily by ‘the industry’ appropriating ‘known’ images and deliberately using them, so much as specific images being ‘adopted’ by the audience. And then becoming iconic.
Crucially, no longer are we simple consumers of whatever is fed us, we can exercise choice through social media, through ‘likes’ and ‘RT’s’ and so on. And that I would argue is what creates an icon.
Let me give an example – The Stolen Scream – an image created in a bedroom by a Flickr user Noam Galai, with no political motive, no thought of icon status, no aspirations to change the world, and yet which has become a global symbol of, amongst other things, the fight against oppression, of hope, of uprising and freedom from tyranny. (And as an aside, and worthy of a separate discussion is the ‘generosity’ of the photographer, happy to see his work so (mis)used globally.)
You can read the whole piece on TechDirt, excerpt below:
It’s about a photographer Noam Galai, who had posted a photo of himself screaming on Flickr. A few years later, he discovered, much to his own surprise, that the photo was being used all over the place. The photo is on t-shirts, in magazines, on book covers and a variety of other places. But rather than freak out and go ballistic (or legalistic) about it, he went a different route. He embraced it. He started posting an archive of everywhere that he’d seen his own face appear — including as a symbol in the Iranian protests against the government. And then others came and saw the archive and sent in more examples they had seen. So now, he’s set up an entire website, TheStolenScream.com, a blog of all the uses of his image he finds… and (quite smartly) his own store to sell things with the image printed on it.
David Bergman, from F-Stoppers, points out that his first reaction, like many he spoke to, upon hearing this story was to wonder if he was suing anyone, or if he was trying to protect his works. He even notes that he “couldn’t understand” why Noam didn’t seem particularly upset about all of this. And, eventually, he came around to realizing that maybe this wasn’t a bad thing:
There is no way to know for sure but I bet if Noam had watermarked his images from the start, none of this would have happened including the Glimpse Magazine cover. The people that were looking for “free” images online would not have contacted him if his images were watermarked, they would have simply found another image to use. By allowing his images to be public, Noam has gotten to experience something that many artists would give anything for. In my opinion, this experience is worth more than any advertising agency could pay for the image. Noam has made almost no money on these images so far, but I believe the money will come. I know many, if not most of you, will disagree with me but I see Noam’s Stolen Scream as an amazing example of art and the power of technology. I believe everything worked out for the best.
The power of an image comes not from what we as ‘creators of images’ might hope for, strive for, even pray for, but from what the audience perceive in it, and invest in it. That’s what makes these exciting times for photography, but also makes the appropriation of particular images such as Aranda’s potentially problematic.
And I think that’s why Madeleine’s post is important, and why it should make us sit up and reconsider the ways images in this digital sharing age are used, abused, disseminated and consumed. And created.
Author — John Macpherson
John MacPherson was born and lives in the Scottish Highlands. He trained as a welder in the Glasgow shipyards, before completing an apprenticeship as a carpenter, and then qualified as a Social Worker in Disability Services. Along the way he has cooked on canal barges, trained as an Alpine Ski Leader & worked as an Instructor for Skiers with disabilities, been a canoe instructor, and tutor of night classes in carpentry, stained glass design and manufacture, and archery. He has travelled extensively on various continents, undertaking solo trips by bicycle, or motorcycle. He has had narrow escapes from an ambush by terrorists, been hit by lightning, caught in an erupting volcano, trapped in a mobile home by a tornado, kidnapped by a dog's hairdresser, rammed by a basking shark and was once bitten by a wild otter. He has combined all this with professional photography, which he has practised for over 35 years. He teaches photography and acts as a photography guide & tutor in the UK and abroad. His biggest challenge is keeping his 30 year old Land Rover 110 on the road. He loves telling and hearing stories.
Discussion (4 Comments)
Some people make the mistake of thinking that what they infer from an image, must be what others must infer. An image, any image, being a symbol, a reproduction – has no inherent value, no intrinsic meaning. A society must assign its significance. We have to agree that a symbol has meaning. Just like we know the word “tree” isn’t a physical tree, but a symbol for one – and societies around the world have their own symbols for “tree” that they all agree mean “tree” to them. Art commonly assigns different meanings to familiar symbols. That’s part of what makes art – art. The basic problem with Madeleine’s POV, is that they seem to be laboring under the idea that images have a fixed, inherent meaning. That putting a different meaning to an image other than that which is generally regarded to be the “genuine” meaning, is essentially perverse – or even worse “wrong”. Yikes.
There are certainly many various problems that can arise when a symbol is appropriated or re-purposed. But often times the “problem” is a failure on behalf of an audience to understand that symbols do not have fixed meanings, or that symbols may have multiple meanings to different groups of people simultaneously. Take for example the difference in perception of the symbol of the swastika between the eastern hemisphere and the western hemisphere.
I could go on, but I’m sure if anybody is interested, they could try reading a book or using google. There are a lot of different thoughts about these sort of things, and that’s kind awesome.
I agree. I think that’s what’s exciting about ‘icon’ creation in this connected world, the various routes through which ‘work’ may flow are limitless and continually changing.
The power of The Stolen Scream for me lies in the fact that it was not created as anything ‘serious’ or ‘important’ and acquired its current status through digital movement and ‘the alchemy of our times’.
That should be a powerful reminder to art creators that its impossible to predict where, when and how your work will find a purpose and meaning, and in ways that you could never imagine. It just needs to be seen. And crucially believed in.
In the Internet industry, extremely talented people offer libraries of code or design templates free of charge with unrestricted use. Copying and altering is encouraged. Products like jQuery or Bootstrap represent countless hours of dedicated effort. They are free to use without compensation, attribution even for commercial purposes. And they will never be on a tshirt or a museum wall. Their authors are often unknown, certainly to the millions of people who unknowingly benefit from their use.
I guess that’s the beauty of code, the hidden elegance of mathematics making a difference. Unseen.