A post modern documentary (part 2)

Continuing on...

In her article 'Postmodernism', Mary Klages draws up a list of the key differences between Modernism and Postmodernism and interestingly finds the easiest way to define/describe Postmodernism is by stating that it's the opposite of Modernism. Perhaps that's the reason why it is difficult to grasp. Perhaps it's also because we are currently in the Postmodern era and it is still evolving and until we move to the next era we won't fully understand it. I believe that it is easier to describe something once its finished - you have the beginning, the middle and the end and thus definition and (attempting) explanation comes more naturally.

Klages states that "Modernity is fundamentally about order; about rationality and rationalisation, creating order out of chaos." She then goes on to explain that this binary philosophy is self destructive, simply, if everything is order, then by default there must always be some chaos to create order from. If we follow that simple thread, sooner or later every element of society and behaviour will become so constrained there can only be rebellion - seems appropriate here to reference the film The Demolition Man. I can understand why Postmodernism evolved - how can anybody be truly creative, if creativity is defined and documented and comes with a prescriptive set of rules?

 So, 30+ years on from Rosler's article "In, around and afterthoughts..." and I believe the world has changed considerably. Whilst the concept of network integration was first being probed as early as the 1950's, the Internet was really only available to the technically minded general public at the beginning of the 1980's. After that, it took the best part of 15 years for this 'new' technology to gather momentum and have a real impact on our lives, for example, email and SMS and whilst it seems like Google has been around for ever, the company was only launched in September 1998. Similarly, blogging has been around since the late 1990's; one of the earliest blog-publishing tools was 'Blogger' launched in 1999, there are numerous others but the more well know ones are Wordpress (2003), Twitter (2006) and Tumblr (2007).

This technological revolution and the general accessibility of information, by the public, has changed the way we view the world and to a greater extent changed how much we are prepared to accept at face value. Lets face it, if somebody mentions a name you don't know, in a fraction of a second Google's completed its search and brought back a couple of hundred thousand results.  Add to this, the fact that information is provided by not only 'reputable' sources (for example, newspapers?) but by the general public themselves, therefore, its hardly surprising that the information we 'find' needs to be reviewed and carefully validated. Any amount of 'information' is available to anybody who cares to look, but how that individual "filters the signal out of the noise" and then uses it is down to that persons personal agenda. Is this Postmodernism in its truest sense?

Picking up on the concerns raised in Rosler's article about the taking and the using of images of disadvantaged or exploited persons; for whatever reason, be it money, sensation, communication of situation or even art; I would suggest in current times this risk is greatly magnified. There is little, if any, control in the use or circulation of images today, historically photographers had a clearly defined outlet for their work - news, newspapers and magazines. Today, anybody with a phone can take an image (or a video clip) and, within seconds of the event happening, post it on the web without any degree of censorship - see Erik Kessels 24 hours in photos. It's difficult to say that this type of behaviour is about financial gain, but its also difficult to defend that its not about personal gain in terms of 'kudos' and 'hits' and 'followers'.

When Rolser talks about "'liberal' documentary, imploring members of the ascendant classes to have pity on the oppressed", as "a thing of the past" I would have to disagree. I'm not quite sure about the term 'ascendant classes', but I am sure about the ongoing use of liberal documentary asking those immediately/currently more fortunate to support those immediately less fortunate - look at any recent weather disasters; adverts on television: NSPCC, Water Aid, etc and Children in Need. I firmly believe that this type of liberal documentary is here to stay.

In Rosler's closing statement she talks about "the germ of another documentary - a financially unloved but growing body of documentary works committed to the exposure of specific abuses caused by people’s jobs, by the financier’s growing hegemony over the cities, by racism, sexism, and class oppression, works about militancy, about self-organisation, or works meant to support them." Is this not the type of story we see regularly in our news papers and TV stations? Again, maybe this is a timing thing...