CommentStreams:480f6c80077b014b9804913534571925

First of, I like the wonderful paradox of the "sterilised spectacle". For, what's left of a spectacle when it's sterilised? As your text shows, a lot still!

I think your consideration of the background is fascinating, and it certainly resonates with own interests in my contribution. It makes me wonder, _when_ is something the background. E.g. in your opening example, Marina Ovsyannikova, while in front of the camera, was in the background of the image. And yet in the disruption of the norm, she became hyper-visible. I think the keywords you mobilise in the text — background, indifference, and attention — form a great constellation of relations. Or, as I think of it in my contribution: signal (foreground) and noise (background).

Your last paragraph, in which you contrast Baudrillard's comment of the war as hypervisible with the ways in which it is hidden from Russia's public sphere is very powerful. It even puts into question Baudrillard's comment, because has war not always extended way beyond the televised battlefield? Or should we think of war as only the visible, physical bit, and do we consider the rest merely politics (coming at Clausewitz's mantra from the other end), or guerilla tactics?

In the last paragraph you propose to think of the war as one of cyberwarfare. While I can certainly imagine it's a fitting term for the war, or at least one part of it, you might want to spend a sentence or two to link it to your story. Thus, what links your story, which to me centres on the backdrop of more traditional warfare (tanks, missiles) that takes place through traditional broadcasting (television, newspapers) with the cyberwar (e.g. hacks, DDoSes, "troll armies", the "shadow fleet"). In particular because your historical account of photo manipulation suggests a continuum rather than a disruption.

Nevertheless, great text which you can take in several interesting directions!