I want to write a bit about this photograph and about "agency," but just before I came to post, I read this, and, holy shit, I just have to share.
Thursday, however, took things to a new level in Milan Cortina — ski jumpers allegedly injecting their penises with hyaluronic acid in order to fly that little bit further.
Injecting the penis with acid would increase its size and give the ski jumpers bigger genitalia at the point their suits are measured by 3D scanners.
Temporarily enhanced measurements would theoretically mean athletes being given a bigger, looser suit and, like a sail catching wind, could allow them to make longer jumps. Research from the scientific journal, Frontiers, published last October said that a 2cm change in a suit represented an extra 5.8 metres in the length of a jump.
Christ. . . what next? I'm thinking. . . before my next date. . . .
Ha! I've been waiting a long time for my next date. Does hyaluronic acid go bad? And once injected, how long does it last? This is the same stuff I get shot into my bad knee every six months. Could one have a big old pecker for. . . whatever.
Back in the day, before Viagra, there was an older gay man who trained at the gym, a fellow whose wealthy partner had died and left him everything. He had gone hog wild. He was flamboyant and drove around town in a little Mercedes convertible. He liked the younger men. To wit: he used a vascular drug that he injected into his penis. When he told us, I flipped. How in the fuck could he stand sticking a needle into his penis? But, he said, he would stay hard all night long much to the amazement of his young concubines.
I once read that African tribes did something called jelqing from an early age. Perhaps the idea of this came from watching Black kids. . . anyway. . . .
There is sure to be a hyaluronic acid craze now.
One last thing--I use it on my face after every shower. Now it feels a little gross.
O.K. Onward. That is a photo from the Cafe Strange. Cafe Life writ large. I love going to this place as you don't see anything else like this anywhere in town. If you want to be a freak and feel the love. . . this is your place.
But. . . and I will get to my point. . . should I be taking such photographs? Is it a criminal act? Is it immoral? Am I an exploiter? Am I guilty of objectification? Should I have asked permission?
These are all the rage over street photography now. Many people want to make taking photos in public places illegal. With the invention of Google Glasses, though, I don't see how that will ever be possible. In my own hometown, there are cameras everywhere. You can't prank your neighbor without being posted on Nextdoor or the like. Everything on the Boulevard is monitored by cameras. You must be ready at all times, for every moment is your Hollywood moment. Do something wrong and your image will be all over t.v.
So, this brings me back to my confusion over the subject/object distinction. Let me clarify how philosophers make the distinction. The subject has "agency," meaning it is cognizant, is motivated, is thinking, etc. The object, on the other hand, does not have agency; for example, my toaster. So, simply put, I am somehow taking away people's agency by photographing them if you agree with the argument. I have, essentially, turned them into toasters.
However. . . to say this about my actions is to objectify me. In the same manner, you have taken away my agency. You objectify everyone and everything about which you communicate. You objectify "the photographer."
Maybe. As I admitted in another post, this relationship has always confused me.
One of my colleagues at the factory wrote his dissertation on animal representation in 18th and 19th century literature. He was a feminist and applied much of the theory to the depiction of animals. His argument was about agency. Animals were objectified and thusly abused.
It makes me wonder about the subject/object representation in Christian mythology. Adam and Eve were given agency, then punished for choosing to use it. Of course an all-knowing God would have predicted that. And thus, they were punished and forced to live with the knowledge of their own deaths and the deaths of all those who came after them.
Cool, right?
Where the fuck is the agency in that?
I will confess, I hate the fucking term. It was all the rage with the Woke faction at the factory. But everytime they denounced someone or their action, I felt they had objectified them, had, in essence, categorized them and stolen the very thing they wanted to promote.
As I often said aloud, "You can't perform the theory."
Which brings me to A.I.
Moltbook.
What is intelligence and how does it develop? A.I. is problematizing the discussion. And so some are pivoting a bit. Feelings are really what agency is all about. Maybe. Much of the brain, you see, is not about consciousness but is responsible for monitoring what is going on in the body, such things, as I read this morning, regulating blood gases. Yea, the brain isn't simply an organ responsible for thinking and cognition. But feelings, it is proposed, were an evolutionary necessity when, in the given example, the brain recognizes it is both hungry and tired. Choices must be made, and so. . .
As I read this, I could only hear that little voice in my head that says, "Nobody gives a fuck about how you feel."
Which is not true. Your therapist does, right?
"How did you feel when you first realized. . . ?"
Television is full of emoting. So many statements now begin with, "Personally. . . ."
Personhood. Agency. Computers may be smart, but can they feel?
I take pictures of toasters, too. I've taken thousands of photos of inanimate objects. But really. . . wouldn't you rather see a photo of some guy jelqing on a street corner as the crowd walks by? Sure, one may be aesthetically pleasing, but the other has much more meaning.
Of course, we all want to know how you "feel" about the survivors and the victims. But you need more information, right? All of it.
If A.I. can create a moral universe. . . you know, a systematic hierarchy of values like Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, but better. . . .
I guess I need to work on how I feel about that.
What I feel right now watching my mother suffer is that life is a giant shit show no matter what we do.
For the rest of it. . . just watch the news. If it ain't objectifying, I don't know anything about any of this at all.
So there you go Susan Sontag. They say you were really something when you wrote "On Photography." You are often quoted. And oft photographed, too. But I'm guessing the next topic should be about "consent."
And, of course, how long it is good for. . . how long it lasts.





























