In “In Defense of the Poor Image”, Hito Steyerl discusses the nature of the ‘poor image.’ She explains that the ‘poor image’ is not about the original. Rather, it is about its own conditions of existence that is typified by various elements such as swarm circulation, digital dispersion, and flexible temporalities. According to Steyerl, the ‘poor image’ is about defiance and appropriation as much as it is about conformism and exploitation. Steyerl supports the view that ‘poor images’ result from mass-production and distribution of a work or its components. In many cases, the original artists do not get any credit once the work has been distributed (Steyerl, 2011).
Videos are a common source of reference for Steyerl to express her views. These videos that can be regarded ‘rich pieces’ lose most of their value as they are distributed to the public, sometimes through illegal means such as piracy. Steyerl uses the term ‘resurrection’ to describe this development. ‘Resurrection’ is one of the criteria introduced by Steyerl to describe the ‘poor image.’ The other criteria include; resolution, privatization, piracy, imperfect cinema, meaning, and how image is seen today. Relating to ‘imperfect cinema’, Steyerl explains;
The imperfect cinema is one that strives to overcome the divisions of labor within class society. It merges art with life and science, blurring the distinction between consumer and producer, audience and author. It insists upon its own imperfection, is popular but not consumerist, committed without becoming bureaucratic (p. 6).
Such cinema has its strong attributes despites its obvious limitations. Steyerl talks about the transformation of an authentic work and how it gradually changes over time in the process of becoming a ‘poor image.’ The definition of a ‘poor image’ in Steyerl’s article is work that lacks quality, has bad resolution, inaccessible, and has been downloaded and edited multiple times.
Juan Garcia Espinosa’s For an Imperfect Cinema is used as an import work to depict the element of imperfect cinema. This manifesto argues that perfect cinema is technically and artistically almost always reactionary. Conversely, imperfect cinema aims to overcome the divisions of labor within class society. The introduction of new media channels such as the internet has had a profound impact on ‘poor images’. Espinosa in For an Imperfect Cinema explains that new media technologies threaten the elitist position of traditional filmmakers by enabling mass film production. There are correlations between the economy of poor images and imperfect cinema. The latter diminishes the distinctions between the author and the audience and merges life and art. Imperfect cinema’s visuality is compromised by being blurred, amateurish, and having many artifacts (Steyerl, 2011).
Comparisons can be drawn between the economy of poor images and the description of imperfect cinema. Conversely, comparisons can be drawn between perfect cinema and the concept of cinema as a flagship store. When compared to Espinosa’s manifesto, contemporary imperfect cinema has become more ambivalent and affective because of significant developments in technologies such as the internet. The availability of a market for ‘poor images’ is facilitated by the possibility of immediate global distribution and the participation of a much larger group of producers. This is a challenge that perfect cinema cannot master (Steyerl, 2011).
*Steyerl, H. (2011, November 05). In Defense of the Poor Image. pp. 1-9.