Technology

Should Odd Google Street View Pictures Be Considered Art?

Since Google Street View (GSV) was launched in 2007, it has been used for a variety of functions. Want to make sure you’re not visiting a sketchy area of town? If you see bars on the windows while panning around with GSV, it might not be the best place. Don‘t want to knock on the wrong door for a friend’s housewarming party? Check out GSV and see what the home looks like before you go.

Google applications can help serve these purposes. But what about GSV becoming art? That’s right, artists and photojournalists are beginning to use Google’s Map, Earth, and Street View applications in their work with some controversy among their peers.

Wired recently reported some people are scouring GSV looking for the “accident” photos and other artistic images, creating a new form of photojournalism that has sparked some controversy about the use of this digital media in art and journalism.

Artists Using Google Applications to Capture or Create Artwork

This man is caught mid-run using Google Street View. Image 4 of "Street View: A Series of Unfortunate Events" by Michael Wolf. (Michael Wolf)

For example, former photojournalist Michael Wolf earned an honorable mention in February for his “Street View: A Series of Unfortunate Events”, which captures oddities found in GSV,  in the Contemporary Issues category at the Word Press Photo Awards. Wolf and other artists using Google applications as their medium generally have cameras on their computer to capture images:

“It’s a real file that I have, I’m not taking a screenshot,” he told The British Journal of Photography [via Wired]. “I move the camera forward and backward in order to make an exact crop, and that’s what makes it my picture. It doesn’t belong to Google, because I’m interpreting Google; I’m appropriating Google.”

Artists Using Google Applications to Capture or Create Artwork

Google Street View captured children playing with each other or beating up their friend. Image 16 of "Street View: A Series of Unfortunate Events" by Michael Wolf. (Michael Wolf)

You can view Wired’s compilation of some accidental and other artistic images captured by artists and photojournalists using GSV.

In late July, NPR also covered art created using Google Maps and Google Earth. Jenny Odell, one of the artists mentioned, created a gallery called “Satellite Collectings” using aerial images of baseball diamonds, swimming pools, nuclear cooling towers, grain silos and more from Google Satellite View. NPR mentioned artwork from several others who have used these applications:

“Satellite Collections” is one of several art projects that have used the visual data supplied by Google’s Maps and Earth applications. Clement Valla’s gallery of warped bridges and roads culls artifacts of the program’s automated image stitching.

[. . .]

Odell usually likes to “wander” through the maps, turning labels off so she loses track of where she is. “It’s a lot like being in a plane,” she writes, “flying over your own country but not actually being able to tell where you are or exactly what you’re looking at. I like the idea of the Earth as an endlessly readable surface.”

Artists Using Google Applications to Capture or Create Artwork

This image by Jenny Odell is composed of 39 landfills taken from Google Satellite View. (Jenny Odell)

Google has also used its technology in an artistic way. Its Earth application was set up to view famous works of art in Spain’s Prado museum. Users can view The Prado in Google Earth at far more detail (1,400 times more megapixels) than a 10 megapixel digital camera would take.

Here’s a video of how Google did it in The Prado:

Comments (48)

1 2
  • Tyler520
    Posted on August 16, 2011 at 4:53pm

    Art is, by definition, “the sensual communication of an intellectual notion via an acquired talent.’

    By definition, it cannot be considered art.

    …nor can most of the garbage being peddled in “art” galleries these days, for that matter.

    Report Post »  
  • mobynowak
    Posted on August 16, 2011 at 12:46pm

    Don’t like being seen on a public street? Don’t use it. Don’t like your house to be seen from the street? Live in the forest. Don’t like to be seen by your fellow taxpayers? Don’t live on the tax-payer provided, plowed, cleaned, and policed street that allows you to conveniently drive to and from work, the store, your church, etc.

    Report Post »  
  • Cold War Vet
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 11:13pm

    Google may have a 360-degree street view of your house! Get on Google, type in your address, and see if they have a “street view.” You might be surprised…

    Report Post » Cold War Vet  
  • Ruler4You
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 8:31pm

    “Art”? It’s surveillance! Nothing more.

    Report Post » Ruler4You  
    • mobynowak
      Posted on August 16, 2011 at 12:42pm

      Surveillance? What you see from a public street is somehow sacred, secret and an invasion of privacy? Hardly. Don’t like to be seen, build a fence. Live in the forest. Build a bunker.

      Report Post »  
    • Brizz
      Posted on August 16, 2011 at 3:16pm

      Peek-a-boo! Eye see you

      Report Post » Brizz  
  • Charles
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 8:07pm

    the answer to the headline question is no

    Report Post »  
  • Rayblue
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 7:19pm

    EyeCatS @ pBase.

    Report Post » Rayblue  
  • Gatekeeper
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 5:28pm

    boring

    Report Post » Gatekeeper  
  • Miami
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 4:16pm

    Yeah so liberals can see the homeless people their policies have created with out leaving the comfort of their elite penthouses/political offices.

    Obama plays the victimhood to an artful level, attacking the private jetclass while wining and dining them for campaign donations. The hypocrisy is grotesque…

    Definition of FASCISM
    1
    often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

    Report Post » Miami  
    • PapaMcCain
      Posted on August 15, 2011 at 7:55pm

      I’m sorry did I miss something? I thought we were talking about Google pictures. One thing I’ve noticed both on the left and the right, each person will use whatever painful stretch they can in order to insult or inflame the “opposition”. You may consider yourself a self-righteous pious God fearing Christian conservative, but when it all boils down, you’re just another self-serving jerk.

      Report Post »  
  • MONICNE
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 4:15pm

    Life imitates Art. Google imitates Life.

    TEA

    Report Post » MONICNE  
  • sizzlinsexybeckster
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 4:00pm

    Taking street photos of people getting hurt or in trouble is not art. it is inhumane. It’s just a lazy form of “photography art” which is insane. People around here sure are getting really lazy.

    Report Post »  
    • DrFrost
      Posted on August 15, 2011 at 4:18pm

      Have you seen the car they drive around to take those photos? It’s all automated. The driver likely didn’t notice anyone getting hurt.

      As for whether or not it’s art…. beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For me some of the photos qualify as art (the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance).

      Report Post »  
    • JJ Coolay
      Posted on August 15, 2011 at 6:27pm

      I always kind of thought art was intentional. This is just random photo taking for information gathering.
      I guess I could be wrong on my definition of what art is, but I just think it’s something you intentionally capture or make or create.

      Report Post » JJ Coolay  
    • WeDontNeedNoStinkingBadges
      Posted on August 15, 2011 at 7:25pm

      “Wolf and other artists using Google applications as their medium generally have cameras on their computer to capture images … I move the camera forward and backward in order to make an exact crop, and that’s what makes it my picture. It doesn’t belong to Google, because I’m interpreting Google; I’m appropriating Google.”

      If it’s for copyright, you‘ve got to use you’re own equipment. Two photographers can snap the same sunset and have their own copyrights. But one photographer cannot get the other’s picture, trim it with scissors, and claim copyright — in fact, he would’ve committed copyright infringement.

      Report Post » WeDontNeedNoStinkingBadges  
    • Brizz
      Posted on August 16, 2011 at 3:23pm

      But do you like Warhol?

      Report Post » Brizz  
  • olddog
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 3:23pm

    Google just bought Motorola, work closely with the BO administration, responsible for the downfall of the Egyptian president, need I go on? Hey it‘s a good search engine but honestly folks the stuff com ing out of Google doesn’t smell to good to me… Do you people, Yep that’s You People, Trust Google?

    Report Post » olddog  
    • jcizarter
      Posted on August 15, 2011 at 3:59pm

      I do not trust anyone but YHVH. period end of sentence

      Report Post » jcizarter  
    • DrFrost
      Posted on August 15, 2011 at 4:11pm

      I use their search engine almost exclusively so I guess I’d have to say I trust them to provide me with a quality search engine. And I like google docs. I also think they have tried to do the right thing on occasion in the past (as with China). I wasn’t aware they were involved in any way with the turmoil in Egypt…. I’ll have to go google that…. or maybe I should use another search engine for that particular search…. hmmmm.

      In general, though, I think it’s naive to expect corporations to do anything but try and maximize their profits while staying just inside the line of the law (and realize that “legal” has never been synonymous with “ethical” or “moral”).

      Report Post »  
    • jb.kibs
      Posted on August 15, 2011 at 4:27pm

      i don’t. i have tried to stop using anything google that i can…

      Report Post »  
    • TheGothicConservative
      Posted on August 15, 2011 at 10:33pm

      Plus Muslim terrorist are using Google Earth as a targeting system for missles to hit Israel

      Report Post »  
  • Patriot Z
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 3:11pm

    art is subjective whats art to you may not be art to someone else. there are peeps who think davinchi, and rembrant suck balls. beauty is in theeye of the beholder and is cmpletly subjective. thats why i never believed it sould be fed funded at all. because if you force people to pay for art you force a definition of art.

    Report Post » Patriot Z  
  • goobert
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 3:05pm

    Probably a different form of art in its own unique way. Why does everyone in here use this to blast Google. Like there street cars are doing something illegal. Just don’t go nude on your front lawn and use encryption on your wifi connections its not that hard.

    Report Post » goobert  
    • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
      Posted on August 15, 2011 at 4:01pm

      Maybe, because the story was about Google? I don’t think anyone here walks nude on their front lawn, and most probably have encryption on their wifi, but they don’t ride around capturing packets with their cars. You can like Google, doesn’t mean I have to.

      Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
  • cntrlfrk
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 2:46pm

    ‘

    I say sue Google for taking pictures of people without their permission and distributing them on the internet.

    Report Post » cntrlfrk  
    • jb.kibs
      Posted on August 15, 2011 at 4:34pm

      if they have a case… is it illegal to publish someones photo, taken in public, without their consent?
      IE, i take pictures at a festival… i post them to my website… they have random people doing random things in them… i know for a fact that it isn’t illegal to do this, i see these pictures all the time online and on television… the news does this constantly for large events, sports, etc…

      NOW, here’s where i say they DO have a case… Over any PRIVATE property.
      they take a picture of you on private property and publish it to the public. i would say that is illegal without consent….

      Report Post »  
    • avgconservative
      Posted on August 16, 2011 at 10:11am

      Anyone can have their picture made when they are at a public activity… but when they step into a venue, that is different. Permission must be obtained to use photos when on private property or at a private event.

      Report Post » avgconservative  
    • brotherjohn
      Posted on August 16, 2011 at 4:14pm

      That’s the beauty of the system. Anyone who has a computer can post the first ridiculous thought that pops into their heads, like you for instance.

      I’d love to hear how you would present your case, given the fact that all of the photos were taken from public streets.

      I am no fan of Google, to the point that I will avoid using anything they produce, but seriously, pick your battles.

      Report Post » brotherjohn  
  • jado1981
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 2:36pm

    So, according to this, can I bring my video camera and video the whole thing and then say it’s my own? It should be just as legal.

    Report Post »  
  • Brizz
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 2:36pm

    WWBanskyD???

    Report Post » Brizz  
  • Dustyluv
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 2:31pm

    I think they need funding from Congress to continue this beautiful crap…

    Report Post »  
  • Crimson Aviator
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 2:19pm

    I agree, art is relative. However, what I think is wrong is that a person would collect a series of screen grabs from street view and submit it as their own work. They did not take the photos there fore it is not their work and they should not receive awards, honorable mentions, or anything else for it. Sounds like they’re plagiarizing to me.

    Report Post »  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 2:14pm

    Google, not safe for anything anymore.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
  • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 2:14pm

    I avoid Google any chance I get. That goes for Facebook, too. Both are way too invasive, IMO, and too close to this administration.

    Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
  • chickenfried
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 2:11pm

    The only difference between art and smart is S&M. I don’t know why that matters to anyone and if you find it at all interesting that I wrote that, then you probably found the article interesting as well. If someone wants to spend all day moving that stupid oval around street pictures then by all means let them, but don’t call it art. Call it “I don’t have a job because of Obamanomics, so all I do with my time is peruse the internet voyeuristically in search of someone laying out topless in their backyard…while at the same time keeping a wary eye out for random happenstances”.

    Report Post » chickenfried  
  • Nightjar
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 2:03pm

    Art, it’s all relative.

    Report Post »  
  • Nightjar
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 2:00pm

    Art can mean anything or any media whether is living or non living. It‘s all about expressing one’s self or what an individual feels or experiences. It’s shared visions.
    A painting is art, so is a dance form, a song, a poem, etc., so what‘s the difference whether it’s a fantastic photo from some magazine or book or from Google images?
    Enjoy it.
    It’s all art.

    Report Post »  
  • Johnnyp1958
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 1:58pm

    And this is an important story because ?

    Report Post »  
    • mils
      Posted on August 15, 2011 at 2:03pm

      because…well….uh….hhmmmm…????

      Report Post »  
    • ArmyStandard
      Posted on August 15, 2011 at 2:25pm

      mils
      Posted on August 15, 2011 at 2:03pm
      because…well….uh….hhmmmm…????

      Hmmmmm… Uh… Yeah, I have nothing.

      Report Post » ArmyStandard  
  • Glenn is Right
    Posted on August 15, 2011 at 1:54pm

    Should “The Blaze” continue to be considered news?

    Report Post » Glenn is Right  
    • Apple Bite
      Posted on August 15, 2011 at 2:16pm

      Yes. At the very least, a source of information outlet. Until MSM get their heads out of their cracksides, Yes.

      Report Post » Apple Bite  
    • mcmxl22
      Posted on August 15, 2011 at 3:44pm

      If you don’t like it, don’t use it. Same for art. If you don’t like it, don’t look.

      Why cant news sights have some fun sometimes?

      Report Post » mcmxl22  
    • PapaMcCain
      Posted on August 15, 2011 at 8:06pm

      I thought that it was going to be just that, an outlet for news that the mainstream ignore. So far all I’ve seen are articles designed with the sole purpose of fomenting anger and divisiveness. Take the headline for the current next story, “More teen violence: shooting at K.C. Plaza injures 3 while mayor ducks for cover”. Don‘t have to read the article to know that a bulk of the comments will be from the mayor’s opposing party calling him a coward for ducking for cover. I am getting so sick and tired of what America has become. We are headed for either a total breakdown to 3rd world status, armed civil war, or totalitarian government in the name of safety. The time will come shortly when assassination will be the standard means of getting ones point across. And don’t tell me to leave, I fought for this country and political bullies won’t scare me off.

      Report Post »  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love