Hito Steyerl, In defense of the poor image
As I read this article, I realised I can't remember the last time I saw a really low quality photo on a google search. This is probably because as everyone knows, we’re at the age of information overload, and things get filtered, leaving the most wanted and most used at our reach, which obviously excludes very poor images. Although, they’re still out there, and some people are bringing them back. There’s a trend going mostly on social media or filters to make images look “less professional,” grainy, blurry, or just bad quality. I blame this on nothing other than people experimenting, and probably nostalgia. Although, this trend is a bunch of fake poor images that aren’t actually poor. They’re just filtered, and haven’t been reused, don’t carry history, or have any reason to look like that (like being faster).

Overall, I don’t consider any to be better than the other. I simply think that there should be a reason behind using each one. Nevertheless, I think that people like me, a designer, may lean more towards a high quality image over a low resolution image is that having become more rare, the low resolution image has gained new significance and meanings. Using a low-res image would in a way require you to have further explanation, maybe linked to its associations of time passing, abstraction, recycling, decomposition. Being less common, and less clear (literally), it requires a visible intention. But using a high resolution image is expected, and thus, needs no explanation; it’s straightforward.

Qs: Do you see the transformation of the poor image as a process of eventually becoming a meaningless/useless object, or does it become more meaningful in this process?
Does an image loose its functionality when it is no longer visible?