Metaphors of subversion in surveillance art photography
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33919/dasc.24.7.7Keywords:
surveillance art, subversion, visual metaphors, discourse metaphorsAbstract
The study addresses the way in which visual and discourse metaphors embody subversion in contemporary forms of documentary photography which investigate and illustrate the issue of surveillance. Surveillance art is part of a new configuration of the vigilance phenomena entailed by massive digitalization, in which the classic roles of the observer and the observed have been replaced by complex participatory dynamics.
Combining social and cognitive semiotic approaches from a theoretical point of view, the analysis dwells on a corpus formed of imagery by Hasan Elahi, Tomas van Houtryve, Mishka Henner. The purpose is to detect and discuss a typology of visual metaphors, as well as metaphorizations of situations in curatorial and other discursive practices which accompany the photographic projects.
Grammar of Visual Design by Kress and van Leeuwen will serve as the main theoretical starting point in defining and explaining a series of internal structures and visual mechanisms which produce a diverse array of subversive effects. The study further aims to discuss metaphors related to discourse practices, since all the art projects belonging to the aesthetics of surveillance are accompanied by an ample series of textual instances. There is also the hybrid manifestation, in which we can speak of interplay between images and texts. The aim is to create counter narrative effects, a phenomenon which can be considered a form of artistic hacktivism.
Finally, we will argue that the resemantization of images and the perceptive implications related to this process are part of a deep social and psychological phenomenon. They represent a powerful indicator of the radical changes in the way in which we define the private and public sphere through the digital lens.
References
Alexopoulou, S., A. Pavli. 2019. “Beneath this Mask There is More than Flesh, Beneath this Mask there is an Idea: Anonymous as the (Super)heroes of the Internet?”. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, Vol. 34, 237–264. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-019-09615-6.
Chown, E., F. Nascimento. 2023. Meaningful Technologies. How Digital Metaphors Change the Way We Tink and Live. Lever Press.
Coaffee, J., P. O’Hare and M. Hawkesworth. 2009. “The Visibility of (In)security: The Aesthetics of Planning Urban Defences Against Terrorism”. Security Dialogue, Vol. 40, Issue 4–5. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0967010609343299.
Dezheng, W. F., K. L. O’Halloran. 2013. “The Visual Representation of Metaphor. A Social Semiotic Approach”. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics.
Dusi, N. 2015. “Intersemiotic Translation: Theories, Problems, Analysis”. Semiotica. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2015-0018.
Eco, U. 2009. The Infinity of Lists. (transl. Alastair McEwen). London: MacLehose Press.
Eco, U. 1984. Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language. London: The Macmillan Press LTD.
El Refaie, E. 2015. “Reconsidering “Image Metaphor” in the Light of Perceptual Simulation Theory”. Metaphor and Symbol, Vol. 30, No. 1, 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2014.948799.
Foster, H. 2015. Bad New Days: Art, Criticism, Emergency. Verso.
Foucault, M. 1977. Discipline and Punish. The Birth of the Prison. (transl. Alan Sheridan). New York: Pantheon Books.
Himanen, P. 2001. The Hacker Ethic and the Spirit of the Information Age. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks.
Howeler, E. 2002. “Anxious Architectures. The Aesthetics of Surveillance”. Volume. Available at: https://archis.org/volume/anxious-architectures-the-aesthetics-of-surveillance/.
Jakobson, R. 2009. On Linguistic Aspects of Translation. In Venuti, L. (ed .). The Translation Studies Reader. London: Routledge, 138–143.
Kress, G., T. van Leeuwen. 2001. Reading Images. The Grammar of Visual Design. Third Edition. New York: Routledge.
Lakoff, G., M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mann, S., J. Nolan and B. Wellman. 2003. “Sousveillance: Inventing and Using Wearable Computing Devices for Data Collection in Surveillance Environments”. Surveillance & Society, Vol. 1, No. 3, 331–355. Available at: https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v1i3.3344.
Rose, N., P. Miller. 1992. “Political Power beyond the State: Problematics of Government.” The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 43, No. 2, 173–205.
Sonesson, G. 1989. Pictorial Concepts. Inquiries into the Semiotic Heritage and Its Relevance for the Analysis of the Visual World. Lund: ARIS and Lund University Press.
Sonesson, G. 2015. Semiotics of Photography: The State of Art. In: Trifonas, P. (ed.). International Handbook of Semiotics. Dordrecht: Springer. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9404-6_19.
Svenonius, O. 2011. Sensitising Urban Transport Security Surveillance and Policing in Berlin, Stockholm, and Warsaw. Stockholm: Stockholm University.
Wang, Z. 2021. “Watch Me Watching: Surveillance Art and the Politics of Observation”. Aspectus. A Journal of Visual Culture, Issue 3, 1–18. Available at: https://doi.org/10.15124/yao-kdgx-a713.
Yus, F. 2009. Visual Metaphor versus Verbal Metaphor: A Unified Account. In Forceville, C., E. Uriós-Aparisi (eds. ). Multimodal Metaphor. Mouton de Gruyter. Editors, 145–172.