Kris' article responces

Questions.

1.  What is meant by a poor image?

The article says that this is a poor image > The poor image is a copy in motion. Its quality is bad, its resolution substandard. As it accelerates, it deteriorates. It is a ghost of an image, a preview, a thumbnail, an errant idea, an itinerant image distributed for free, squeezed through slow digital connections, compressed, reproduced, ripped, remixed, as well as copied and pasted into other channels of distribution.

The poor image is a rag or a rip; an AVI or a JPEG, a lumpen proletarian in the class society of appearances, ranked and valued according to its resolution. The poor image has been uploaded, downloaded, shared, reformatted, and reedited. It transforms quality into accessibility, exhibition value into cult value, films into clips, contemplation into distraction. The image is liberated from the vaults of cinemas and archives and thrust into digital uncertainty, at the expense of its own substance. The poor image tends towards abstraction: it is a visual idea in its very becoming.

The poor image is an illicit fifth-generation bastard of an original image. Its genealogy is dubious. Its filenames are deliberately misspelled. It often defies patrimony, national culture, or indeed copyright. It is passed on as a lure, a decoy, an index, or as a reminder of its former visual self. It mocks the promises of digital technology. Not only is it often degraded to the point of being just a hurried blur, one even doubts whether it could be called an image at all. Only digital technology could produce such a dilapidated image in the first place.

Poor images are the contemporary Wretched of the Screen, the debris of audiovisual production, the trash that washes up on the digital economies’ shores. They testify to the violent dislocation, transferrals, and displacement of images—their acceleration and circulation within the vicious cycles of audiovisual capitalism. Poor images are dragged around the globe as commodities or their effigies, as gifts or as bounty. They spread pleasure or death threats, conspiracy theories or bootlegs, resistance or stultification. Poor images show the rare, the obvious, and the unbelievable—that is, if we can still manage to decipher it.

I think that the poor image is one that is  not considered within its context. 

2.  What is meant by the contemporary hierarchy of images?

That certain images hold a higher value than others. When an image is technically proficient that it is held in a higher value, and vice versa. 

3. What qualifies a work as experimental?

I think that it is hard to define work as experimental until after it is followed by its successor. 

4. Do you agree that poor images are poor because they are not assigned any vale from the clas society of images?

No, I think that an image is poor when every aspect of its installation is not been a result of a specific decision. 

5. What relevance does this have to painting?

Especially because much of today's art is seen on a screen, at some point, everything made becomes an image. Paintings go from being about what has been discussed with paint to adjacent colored pixels. 

6. How do we measure the quality of image?

Carefully. 

7.  Do you consider these qualities when constructing work?

I consider this when editing work. 

8.  What role does the human condition or the "everyday" have in your work?

It seeps in slowly and often times I don't give its due diligence until post-production.