Group Final
Our group chose to read Earthward: Landscape Photography in the Satellite Age because we were all interested in how Miller explains the transformation of landscape photography once the camera is lifted off the ground and placed into the air. The article felt relevant to a lot of the theories we covered this semester, especially around vision, mediation, technology, and ideology. We each read it on our own and then met to discuss it together, and the conversation made us realize how layered Miller’s argument actually is.
I started our discussion by talking about how the shift from ground-level photography to satellite imagery made me think immediately of Berger’s claim that there is no such thing as neutral seeing. I explained that when Miller describes the camera rising upward, the actual meaning of the land shifts with it. A ground level photograph lets you encounter the land as a person moving through it, while a satellite view turns it into an abstract surface or a pattern. I also said this reminds me of the Berger because the gaze becomes shaped by distance, technology, and control, not by lived experience. We spent a while talking about this because it helped ground the rest of our conversation. It made us realize that Miller is not talking about photography as a simple act of recording, but as something that reshapes the viewer’s entire relationship to the world.
Cat built onmy point by bringing up ideology. She said that satellite imagery feels objective because it looks like pure data, but the viewpoint itself already carries a layer of power. They pointed out that satellites are usually controlled by governments, corporations, or institutions with specific interests, so even the act of photographing the earth from above becomes part of a larger political system. They connected this to our class conversations about how representation is never neutral. Cat said that when a satellite photographs land, it is not just showing geography. It is showing an arrangement of borders, resources, and territories that reflect the priorities of the people who operate the technology. This part of our discussion helped us see that Miller is also writing about surveillance, control, and the ways technology can quietly reinforce certain worldviews.
From there, Lauren shifted us into thinking about Benjamin and reproduction. She noted that satellite images are produced constantly, almost automatically, and stored in huge archives. Benjamin writes about how repeated reproduction can weaken the aura of an image, and we thought this applied perfectly to Miller’s argument. When landscapes become one image out of thousands or millions, they stop feeling like real places that someone stood in front of. They turn into data points or aesthetic patterns that can be endlessly zoomed, cropped, filtered, or used for measurement. She also explained that this creates a kind of distance between people and the land itself, almost as if the earth becomes something watched from above rather than lived on. Our group agreed that this shift changes not only how landscapes are represented, but also how people think of themselves in relation to the planet.
We also talked about McLuhan and the idea that the medium shapes the message. I said that satellite imagery creates a new kind of landscape by default. Instead of mountains or fields, the landscape becomes something flattened and rendered into grids or color-coded maps. Lauren mentioned that this means the satellite is not neutral. It is shaping the meaning of the image before the viewer even interprets it. Cat added that this affects policy, geography, and even how nations justify certain decisions. The medium turns the land into something that can be measured, managed, or divided, which ties back to ideology and representation.
As the conversation went on, we realized that each of our points kept looping back into each other. My observation about perception helped us understand Cat’s point about power, which helped connect to Lauren’s point about mediation and reproduction. We also talked about how Miller’s argument challenges us to think about photography not as a storytelling tool but as a system that influences how the world is organized. By the end of the discussion, we felt that reading the article together made it far easier to see how the theories from the semester overlap. Instead of treating each author separately, we were able to use them together to unpack the article in a much deeper way.
We combined all of our ideas into this final response to show how each of us contributed and how our conversation shaped our collective understanding of the article
Dylan, Cat and Lauren met on zoom call at 2pm.
