I wanted to continue the conversation we had in class on Thursday when Professor Parham introduced the question of: Why does representation matter? Keeping in mind the role of data and art. I felt like most people valued art a lot more than data, and I wanted to push back a little of the undervaluation of numbers in representation.
Data is important- in the simplest of terms- for documenting experiences with an evaluative function in a more concrete way than artwork may. I do agree with many students that often times data can be seen as reducing experience into statistics, but I think it’s also important to remember how difficult it would be to create art without being able to draw on historical data. In our class discussion, we placed an emphasis on pitting these two modes of storytelling against each other, (this is a little late but I wanted to tie in Professor Johnson’s talk from March as well) but I think there is a definitive value in combining these two resources.
The inclusion of data in story telling is particularly compelling. These numbers are useful in terms of providing a tangible way to evaluate an experience. I think the incorporation of data can often elevate an artistic work by bringing in elements of truth and reality. In Professor Johnson’s talk on digital humanities, she introduced this new concept of evaluating and telling history. Through incorporating data from historical archives with mediums of technology, a comprehensive depiction of the past can be created.
Scrolling through Spike Lee’s IMDb page in our last class reminded me of a thought I had at the beginning of the semester, one that we never had the opportunity to discuss. Lee has an incredible 65 credits as a director, but also an impressive 18 as an actor. The majority of these appearances come within Lee’s own films. Serving this dual role started off as merely an interesting observation and something I struggled to make a solid claim about. However, after our discussion regarding representation, I started to piece together the foundations of an argument regarding Lee’s presence in his own films.
The burden of representation is heightened with Lee’s role as both director and actor. Not only must he create a story that will accurately portray his message, but he also must enact this message through his character. Lee’s opportunity to transmit his message is increased, but he also risks skewing it through his presence within the film. It’s interesting to track which films Lee appears in. Out of the films we’ve watched this semester, he typically appears in films that fall within his comfort zone – like films based in New York or semi-autobiographical films. The avoidance of acting in films outside of his neighborhood like Chi-Raq or subject matters he might not have as much experience in is striking. It could boil down to question of his business model, which we explored in class, but it also might relate to representation. Lee already faces problems of representation by virtue of being viewed as a “black film maker”, but including himself on screen within these films also poses other questions. Venturing out of comfort zone might cause him to be accused of invading places he doesn’t belong, but there’s also a heightened sense of responsibility inherent in acting out his own story.
In thinking about these ideas I attempted to find some scholarship discussing Lee’s presence as an actor, but struggled to find anything substantial. One piece briefly discussed Lee’s acting, but focused on Lee’s role as a director. The language of the piece presents these two elements almost as if he was two different people. His role as an actor solely serves to further his message as director. This is of course the nature of an actor-director relationship, but thinking about one single person serving themselves is a particularly interesting dynamic. I’m still piecing together my thoughts regarding Lee’s presence in his own films, so please feel free to share any work you find regarding this, and of course your own thoughts!