Martin J. Sabine // Negative Space Paradigm

The negative space that surrounds objects and places, devoid as it is, of all encompassing light still draws our attention. The intrusive spark of brightness within the darkness of an image highlighting the contrast between the two. You come to the photograph or image as an aesthetic object with no context... Then you step in and read the text and then out again to revisit the image in a completely different way. I'm interested in that space between text and image. The piece becomes the negative space between the two. Therefore conceptually the two sets of negative space the one within the image the other between the text and image come together as a kind of symbiotic paradox. 

The Importance of this analysis is presumptive, in so much that it requires a level of understanding from potential viewers of the image, to make a distinction between the title (the text) and the photograph (the image) a photograph without proper caption is worthless particularly in journalism. On the other hand, you can cause damage with an incorrect title: For instance you can diminish the impact of an image by using overly cute titles, or take away the imagination of the viewer by describing too much or leading in a direction that the image is not quite supporting. Sometimes this might be an enhancement, where the author of the image wants to influence the audience in any given direction, and other times it can end up being a distraction.

In essence do titles contribute to the meaning that is seen in an image? According to purist doctrine, words beyond the image/frame are not supposed to influence the understanding or appreciation of visual form, ergo it argues that titles should function simply as identification tags not sources of meaning for the viewer. The contrary position of most discerning contemporary advocates of the free aesthetic articulate views at variance to the purist credo, moreover they have moved away from the elitist doctrine on how art should be viewed to a more open liberal approach that focuses on conceptualizing the function of titles, as an example they are concerned with titles not as mere tags, but descriptions that have a unique purpose that determine to a degree the interpretation of the aesthetic of an image. 

What a work of art is titled…..has a significant effect on the aesthetic it presents and the qualities we perceive in it. Titles emphasise relevant contextual factors in the viewing of artworks and different titles engage the viewer in many ways. Some titles for instance provide explicit directives for interpretation which can add to the experience or conversely in other cases detract. In some examples the title can be a simple and straightforward description that adds little to the meaning of the work so becomes neutral in the equation. 

In conclusion does the difference in the title affect what people interpret from an image or in part what they attend to, or do different people respond and react differently? That question is open-ended as we all know that art is very subjective and we take what we want from any presentation of art. I think we can all agree, that as long as we enjoy the engagement whether positive or negative, is all that matters and that so long as we take away an overall appreciation of the experience then this is a benefit to both the viewer and the artist….

© M.J. Sabine 2020

Martin J. Sabine // Is Online Privacy a Reality or just a Pipedream?

Our nation is controlled by opaque, amoral artificial intelligences -- and so are we. A lot of
people worldwide feel trapped by Facebook, the big-data platforms use AI’s to analyse, taunt
and manipulate us. Facebook is the worst of them, because most AIs are really only interested
in selling you stuff, Facebook is really only interested in keeping you engaged with Facebook,
and conversely, that often means filling you with anger and fear. Facebook has shown that a big
data AI can control our opinions and manipulate our emotions. But it's far from the only AI of its
kind, and this is just the beginning. The big data AI cat is out of the bag, and it knows everything
about you. Facebook is particularly powerful because it has convinced people to maintain an online presence and to log the contents of their lives within its structure. Most big data systems need several different data sources, collected from different sets of online activities, to create their profile of you: where and when you log onto the web, the locations tracked through your phone, who your friends are.

Facebook uses buttons and cookies embedded in web pages to build a profile on you even if
you don't hold an account with them and are just a visitor. But even if you have enabled an ad
blocker and don't ever click "Like," there's enough data out there for Facebook to trawl and to
find out plenty about you. It could track what your friends say about you, and use data collected
from other sources. If you have a whole network of friends who are local to you, there's a good
chance you live locally; if you shop at a number of stores or supermarkets in a local area, and
those supermarkets and stores share your loyalty card data with data brokers and then those
data brokers share it with Facebook, Facebook would be able to figure out where you live and
shop. Because there are so many data sources, opting out of Facebook data-sharing won't opt you out of the manipulations and predations of big data. If we're going to get a handle on these AIs, we need solutions that target the whole online ecosystem, not just one particularly obnoxious site. The conversation can't just be about Facebook.

One of the biggest AI growth areas is in accurate facial recognition solutions ... This AI
technology can scan 1 billion photos and recognize/identify photos in just one second."
According to the industry insiders, it's ready to deploy in banks, offices and hospitals. It won’t
matter if you don't have a Facebook account: Your bank card and loyalty card usage will be tied
to your face, and your bank will share that information with data brokers and credit reference
agencies such as Experian. You can't opt out of banks and stores. It will mean that every time
you step within reach of a camera, the AIs will collect data on you. Every time you use a card.
Every time you get tagged by a friend in a photo. Even trying to shut it down by denying
permissions and other close out methods won’t work the system is too big and intrusive, without
opting out of society entirely we are not going to get the privacy or protection we desire.
The other growth area and possibly the most frightening with regard to data collection and
spying is the move to so called “smart” products in the home. Products that you interact with
such as Amazon's Alexa and Google's Siri and a plethora of others with a benign presence in
the background such as lighting and fridge freezers and even toothbrushes that log how many times you miss brushing your teeth. All these items are in your own personal environment and
with regard to Alexa and Siri in touch with their respective manufacturers and managers every
minute of everyday, your viewing and browsing habits at the mercy of the conglomerates and
also the potential for smart TV's to actually being able to “see” you going about your daily life.
All companies that collect such personal information should be forced to request specific
permission for each destination they want to share data with -- blanket permissions wouldn't be
accepted. That would make large-scale data harvesting relatively inefficient, this in itself would
not fix the primary problem with Facebook. It knows enough about you, through your
interactions solely on Facebook to make you sell your soul for clicks and likes. Facebook needs
to grow a conscience and stop feeding off negative emotions. Blocking data-sharing would be a
little annoying. You might have to come up with different logins for different websites again. But
the only way we're going to free ourselves from a world run by AIs to break big data back down
into little data again.

As we know from recent coverage in the media Facebook at present, others will follow, are
being publically charged with selling and passing on privileged data to third parties and also
allowing their platform to be manipulated by “dark forces” to interfere with sovereign politics and
to proliferate “Fake News” which can destabilise governments and allow the threat of terrorism
to spread. I personally believe the time has come for a cold hard look at the way these platforms
operate or because of the amount of money generated by these huge corporations is this just a
“Pipe Dream”....