Follow this blog:
RSS

Google Street View photos uncover the unexpected

By | September 6, 2012, 11:33 AM PDT

When Google sent out an army of automobiles, each equipped with nine cameras on a single pole, each armed with a GPS and three laser range scanners, each pointing the cameras at nothing and everything at the same time, I wonder what exactly Google thought they were mapping?

Montreal-based artist Jon Rafman delved into this question with The Nine Eyes of Google Street View, a strangely intimate collection of screenshots taken from Street View blogs and his own virtual searching.

“The world captured by Google appears to be more truthful and more transparent because of the weight accorded to external reality, the perception of a neutral, unbiased recording, and even the vastness of the project,” Rafman wrote in an essay about the project for Art Fag City.

“The collections of Street Views both celebrate and critique the current world. To deny Google’s power over framing our perceptions would be delusional, but the curator, in seeking out frames within these frames, reminds us of our humanity.”

“Street View collections represent our experience of the modern world, and in particular, the tension they express between our uncaring, indifferent universe and our search for connectedness and significance. A critical analysis of Google’s depiction of experience, however, requires a critical look at Google itself.” - Jon Rafman

“The artist/curator, in reasserting the significance of the human gaze within Street View, recognizes the pain and disempowerment in being declared insignificant. The artist/curator challenges Google’s imperial claims and questions the company’s right to be the only one framing our cognitions and perceptions.” - Jon Rafman

“In theory, we are all equally subject to being photographed, but the Street View collections often reveal it is the poor and the marginalized who fall within the purview of the Google camera gaze.

Even though Google places a comment, ‘report a concern’ on the bottom of every single image, how can I demonstrate my concern for humanity within Google’s street photography?” - Jon Rafman

Images: Jon Rafman

Jon Rafman’s full essay: Art Fag City

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Rachel James

About Rachel James

Rachel James is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Rachel James

Rachel James

Contributing Editor

Rachel James is a radio documentary producer and multimedia journalist based in Brooklyn, New York. She has worked with Radiolab and This American Life, contributed to WNYC's Talk To Me, Down East Magazine, KALW's Crosscurrents and the Third Coast International Audio Festival. She holds a degree from the University of Toronto and is a graduate of the radio program at the Salt Institute for Documentary Studies.

Follow her on Twitter.

Rachel James

Rachel James

Rachel does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what she covers.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
9
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+3 Votes
+ -
In theory
Rafman says "in theory, we are all equally subject to being photographed, but the Street View collections often reveal it is the poor and the marginalized who fall within the purview of the Google camera gaze." Isn't that the fault of the collectors? They don't choose images unless they seem exceptional, so ordinary or "non-marginalized" people don't make the cut.
Posted by AlanLaRue
Updated - 7th Sep
+2 Votes
+ -
Public vs. Private space
Thanks for your comment. That line also jumped out at me, but I came to think of it as referring to private space as an exclusionary space. In this context, marginalized populations are seen as inhabiting a more public space, precisely because of their social positioning. If you look through the complete collection, you see many folks working and sleeping on the street. But I would love to hear how others interpret Rafman's idea. Is he, as "artist/curator", simply narrowing down on something that is already there?

Thanks again!
Posted by Rachel James
7th Sep
+2 Votes
+ -
Perception is controlled by the curator, not the data collector.
"The artist/curator challenges Googles imperial claims and questions the companys right to be the only one framing our cognitions and perceptions" Funny, the curator is far more responsible for manipulating the framing of our cognition and perception, for the curator is, after all, the artist forcing us to see the random in a specific way. Google drives down streets and captures one moment in time, nothing more. Send random people down all the aisles of a grocery store and each one will have their own perception of reality and will form their own conclusions. Google has far less ability to manipulate perceptions than even a grocer. Google has no choice what's to be seen on any street at any given time. The "curator's" attempt to assign motives to Google is so far fetched as to approach paranoia.
Posted by hdc77494@...
7th Sep
0 Votes
+ -
Just like the media...
...or this web site.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
7th Sep
+1 Vote
+ -
Definitely agree!
This whole story reminded of the many times I have heard people cry foul! at innocent things because they themselves are the ones that are tainted. The biggest one that comes to mind is the Playstation pair of ads that had one with a black women pinning a white woman to the ground and another that had the white woman grabbing the black woman's face. The whole thing was about the new choice in colors of the newest Playstation at the time. Many times a person will super-impose their own bigotry, hatred, racism or whatever onto an innocent set of data to advance their own agenda. They may even be ignorant of the fact they are doing it but the end result is any normal-thinking person can see that there is no story there. Remove the flowery speech and the only thing left is a man who found a few pictures out of millions and tried to advance his own prejudice against big business or Google specifically.
Posted by BigJake77
7th Sep
0 Votes
+ -
You assume the undemonstrated
Perhaps the curator is showing us the effects of poverty and neglect. It's interesting that this implies a prejudice against big business in some minds.
Posted by John Hartshorn
7th Sep
0 Votes
+ -
You obviously didn't read a single word in the original post.
The collections of Street Views both celebrate and critique the current world. To deny Googles power over framing our perceptions would be delusional, but the curator, in seeking out frames within these frames, reminds us of our humanity.
These pictures neither celebrate nor critique. They are pictures in a map that may or may not have things going on in them. If a person decides to add meaning to them, in any way, shape or form, they are the ones responsible for meaning not the company that blindly snapped the pics. Calling Google 'imperial' because they have been the only company to take objective pictures is a direct insult against the company.

The artist/curator, in reasserting the significance of the human gaze within Street View, recognizes the pain and disempowerment in being declared insignificant. The artist/curator challenges Googles imperial claims and questions the companys right to be the only one framing our cognitions and perceptions.

He directly says that Google has declared people as insignificant. Yet another example of his prejudice being overlayed onto innocent data. He questions their right to be the only one framing our perceptions yet they are the only ones framing that perception if the only pictures you ever looked at were in Google maps.

"A critical analysis of Googles depiction of experience, however, requires a critical look at Google itself."
Google went around taking pictures of everything with no thought or intent other than to capture everything you would see on every street. The content of which they have no control over. How can any normal thinking individual not see that? Why would an objective action that has no obvious malice need a critical look unless the writer himself is simply looking for a reason to be critical of the action's performer?
Posted by BigJake77
8th Sep
0 Votes
+ -
As it is.
The pictures are a small amount of thousand taken.As a panter how you can paint whaevert You want.
Posted by davewsr2
7th Sep
-3 Votes
+ -
sdfgwegwe
Here are More characteristics, novel style,varieties,and good quality low price



http://dv.gd/wul



http://dv.gd/wul



http://dv.gd/wul
Posted by wsduifnxkjvw
7th Sep
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!