For this week's tutorial presentation, I will be covering the article A Camera with a View: JenniCAM, Visual Representation and Cyborg Subjectivity written by Krissi M. Jimroglou. The article basically focused on JenniCAM, an online ‘homecam’ phenomenon that occurred in 1996. Jennifer Ringley, or more commonly known as Jenni, started a website dedicated to nothing else but daily pictures of herself – all captured by a digital camera mounted on top of her computer. The webpage refreshed automatically every few minutes displaying a new picture for viewers. In other words, one was able to view and study Jennifer Ringley’s daily life and her every move through digital images. In the span of the JenniCAM phenomenon, Jenni included nudity and also pictures of her sexual activities. However, it was stated that most of her pictures were not particularly exciting. The pictures took account of Jenni occupied in a mundane routine of working on her computer, checking emails or talking on the phone. Nevertheless, JenniCAM brought upon a large number of fans constantly hooked to their computers for the next refresh.
In the article, Jimroglou basically made a point that Jenni could be seen as a ‘cyborg subject’. He also addressed several issues such as hybridity, perversity and the psychoanalytic readings of JenniCAM in regards to the matter. I shall focus on the issue of hybridity between human and computer and also the perversity aspect that comes along with the concept of JenniCAM.
Hybridity
For the record in this class, in case anyone of you had forgotten, Donna Haraway defined a cyborg as ‘a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism’. Jimroglou suggested that through the integration of the human body and technology, Jenni could be the prime example of a cyborg. She was quoted as being not ‘fully human nor fully machine yet constituted, in part, by both’. In fact, the term JenniCAM itself showed the hybridity between human (Jenni) and machine (CAM). From the reading, I found it interesting that this notion only worked if Jenni is sitting at the computer. Jimroglou proposed it as a fusion between human and machine. In other words, once she moves away to the background and reveals her body, she is immediately distinguished as human again. In my opinion, I think she still could be categorized as a cyborg whether she sat in front of the computer or not. When a person views the picture of Jenni, say, wearing her socks, she is still seen to be a virtual image on a screen that has no physical presence. The uncertainty of the boundaries of what it means to be human remains. What is your take on this?
Perversity
According to Jimroglou, JenniCAM destabilizing the traditional and tacit lines of the public and private self is another constituent of being a cyborg. I would have to say that it is not easy to find someone who portrays his/her life on the World Wide Web 24/7. The article suggests that the whole concept of JenniCAM is undoubtedly perverse for an average college student, or anyone else for that matter. All in all, Jenni broke down the cultural norm which had people’s eyes peeled for more (quite literally, I bet.). In addition, Jimroglou also claimed that JenniCAM forced the term ‘voyeur’ to be reevaluated. This is due to the fact that JenniCAM portrayed a visual of something that was not meant to be seen or scrutinized but yet at the same time, Jenni was aware of being watched and wanted people to tune in. In relation to the perversity of the concept, I may have encountered that streak of narcissism myself a few times while webcamming with my friends back home. I’m cringing inside just thinking about it in retrospect but at that point of time, it happened quite… naturally. Ooh yeah, I’m gazing wistfully out of my window, hurry, look at me while I’m acting like I don’t know you’re looking. Anyway, like what Jimroglou suggested, the idea of JenniCAM evolved the relationship between the camera, the photographer, and the viewer. This is shown by Jenni holding the role of an object yet refusing the traditional illustration of objectification. Also, Jenni being a woman also brought forth a few points about gender relations. While I understand that the notion of voyeur could have been implemented by the preoccupation with the female body, I can't help but wonder if the 'homecam' phenomenon would be as attention-grabbing and cultivate the same degree of voyeurism if it was introduced to the world by a man.
FYI, JenniCAM has been long defunct. Rumour has it that she stopped because her boyfriend wasn't too comfy with the idea of being watched 24/7. Can't blame the guy, really. Anyway, I'll end it here with a Youtube video of Jenni appearing on the Late Show with David Letterman. Enjoy! :)
4 comments:
It's funny but I still struggle to get away from the feeling that a cyborg has to be a more physical melding of machine/flesh. Maybe I'd think she's more like a cyborg if the cam was fused into her arm :p
When I first read this article I didn't know what to think. At first my 'anti-big brother' instinct kicked in, and I passed quite a harsh judgement. My judgement, I guess, was quite in line with the "Jenni as an Object" reading. But her motives, in my opinion, for creating and being JenniCAM were relatively far removed from the reasons people today sign up for Big Brother. She started JenniCAM when she was 19 and at college. She was probably a little lonely and looking for attention. Initially, it wasn't about the fame or money as JenniCAM was the first it its kind and she could not have foreseen how popular she would become. It was more about providing a representation of her life that was as real and authentic as possible.
But what has it done for our society? Did she really break down boundaries between public and private? Did she construct other objects and subjects of vision? Or did she lead the way in making Internet pornography mainstream?
During her first few years of broad casting she would perform strip teases when requested by her fans, but stopped when she received death threats after a particular occassion in which she refused a fans request. However, she wasn't having sex/masturbating etc. 24/7, and I'm sure there were other, more graphic porn sites on the net at the time, so the occasionally explicit nature of JenniCAM can not be the sole reason for the (at its peak) 3-4million viewers. JenniCAM didn't simplify sexality, as is so often done in mainstream pornography, she resented as a whole, complex, vunerable individual. She offered her body, but also her mind to mainstream consumption. In my opinion, it is this offering of her mind, of her human complexities that seperates her from the pornography tag.
I'd agree with the concluding statement, that
"JenniCAM muddies our understanding of the power of watching and the privilage of sight"
however I think there would be precious few of her viewers whom saw her as a 'new social subject'.
I would agree that JenniCAM positions Jenni as a cyborg even when she is not at her computer. However, I don't think that Jimroglou's article denies this. What Jimroglou actually says is this: "The image of Jenni at her computer becomes an icon for that fusion" of body and machine. Later, she points out that "[t]he pace and narrative of Jenni's life is experienced by viewers in a timed, regimented, mechanical way" (emphasis mine). I read this paragraph as saying that the method of delivering images used by JenniCAM is what positions her as a cyborg, but that her position as a cyborg is highlighted by images of her at her computer.
Personally, I think that it was the ambivalence of Jenni's position that made her as a "cyborg subject". In one way, she was living in physical space; in another, she was living in cyberspace. Cyberspace was the only way her fans could know her. I think the apparently mundane nature of many of the images added to the sense that Jenni was actually living in cyberspace. Rather than being an obviously designed and focused narrative, JenniCAM purported to represent Jenni's life exactly as it was - online. (I agree that awareness of the camera would likely have affected Jenni's behaviour. The important point is that JenniCAM positioned itself as a true representation of Jenni's life.)
I don't know if this is getting too philosophical or not, but it seems to me that OUR perception of Jenni's identity is certainly cyborg since we view/ed her through technology and the JenniCAM. However, I think Jenni herself as her own person is not cyborg - if this makes sense. Kinda like two personalities. The one we know on the internet from the JenniCAM and the other we don't know that is the "real" Jenni.
Post a Comment