The year was 1983. On the tele, there was a news report about the tenth anniversary of Pablo Picasso’s death. As a child, I knew nothing about fine arts and artistic movements. But, his name was instantly recognisable. The word ‘Picasso’, appeared often in family and school colloquialisms. To say someone was a ‘Picasso’, was, on occasion to mock. Mostly though, it was used to praise artistic talent. On the old living room carpet in 1983, it was likely the first time that I had seen Picasso’s face. Also, I think it might have been the first time I’d seen his paintings and had the experience of people chatting about what he’s done. Picasso’s face, often photographed with a steely gaze, lends itself well to news reports. A gaze that somewhat helped me be drawn into the stories of his influences on art and society.
There are two things the Internet does really well.
1. Reproduce the world onto a digital screen. (Or a hodgepodge of simulacra)
2. Reproduce us onto a digital screen. (Or a mirror of feelings subject to the screen image)
Their effects are both powerful – only needs ‘one occurrence’ to make long term and perhaps life-long memory. As well as intoxicating – engendering a need for ‘frequent occurrence’.
Should we be concerned with reproducing these kind of images and our consumption of them? Are there problems with this sort of lifestyle and such intensive media immersion? If so, exactly how would we address and define these ‘problems’? Continue reading