Response to In Defense of the Poor Image

                I read sections of  'In Defense of the Poor Image' multiple times but still struggle to grasp the author's true reflections so I am making the most of what I understood. I enjoy the juxtaposition of the title of the essay with the introduction. The poor image is said to be this scum-of-the-earth, this disease that has seeped into modern media. I love how Steryel identifies focus as a "class position" and goes on to describe how modern technology has created a new standard of resolution within an image that is fetishized. So suddenly within the text, modern technology becomes the enemy rather than the poor image, and we begin to see what defense there is in favor of the poor image. With modern technology, anyone can be a photographer or filmmaker. Whether or not you have the latest and greatest iPhone, with its perpetually increasing camera quality, nearly every cell phone has a camera to capture images with. Apple uses this feature to entice customers. You can see commercials on TV of glorious sunsets on a riverboat and portraits of people from around the world and the text appears on screen, captured on an iPhone X. The availability of beautiful, high resolution images is so vast that the meaning behind the image itself is degraded. I read a fictional story on facebook once about a dinner party a photographer attended. At the party, the host showered the photographer with praise, saying his photos were so beautiful that he must have a wonderful camera. The photographer replied that the dinner was so delicious that the host must have a wonderful oven. It is not the device that creates an image, it is the creator. The author that Steryel so loving claims is castrated in today's world due to a lack of resolution within an image. The poor image reflects so intently upon our society. The image is not pretty, clean, or pristine. It is not of the highest quality, so it is not valuable. Just like the people who take selfies in dimly lit bathrooms at odd angles are judged and belittled. What does that say about us as a society? Steryel goes on to claim that despite the ridicule towards poor images, which devolve with every copy and repost, are quite popular. In these cases, people care enough about the content of the image rather than it's quality. When you watch America's Funniest Home Videos, you do not think of how poor the video resolution is or the technique of the camera man. You laugh at the talking dog or the idiotic teenager jumping off their roof onto a trampoline. When you watch the man blocking the tank in Tiananmen Square, a famous clip captured in 1989, your mind does not question why the camera is blurred and shaking slightly due to its distance from the terrifying scene. Steryel concludes with how the poor image is about reality. It is about networks and content and social movements. You can spend tens of thousands on fancy cameras or lenses, but quality cannot replace content.