This familial mapping project is proving a bit unwieldy, so I will sign off 2007 with the following findings. Metaphortean readers can anticipate an addendum sometime early in the new year.“
Reminiscent of confronting a vast and perplexing database, the sight of so many conflicting wonders arouses a desire to enter the labyrinth and try to navigate the elegant maze” (Barbara Stafford, Good Looking)
Unexpected Correspondences: “Most, if not all, paranormal phenomena were preconceived hoaxes,” writes Karl Schoonover in his essay Ectoplasm, Evanescence and Photography. “To disguise this fact and meet the expectations of an increasingly science-savvy public, twentieth-century spirit photographs needed both to reference contemporary science and to mimic its methods of investigation and data collection.” Originally manifesting in the 1860s, the phenomenon known as “Spirit Photography” dramatically transformed in the early 20th century, reflecting changes in technoculture at large. With the advent of Eastman Kodak’s Brownie (introduced in 1900) and the subsequent waves of amateur photographers tinkering with the craft; initial notions of the camera as a haunted medium had given up their ghosts. The presence of shutterbugs was on the rise and, spirit photographers notwithstanding, there was much excitement about the capabilities of this mechanical instrument. This is not to say that belief in spirits, ghosts and the supernatural had been extinguished. Physical signs of supernatural activity, namely the abject excretions known as ectoplasm, emerged in response to growing public scrutiny of photographic processes and heightened awareness of photo-fakery. A paradigm shift.
Exemplifying what McLuhan would later refer to as the reversal of an over-heated medium, the shift towards documentation of ectoplasm, “so excessively indulges a corporeal spectacle that it endangers the plausibility of the very phenomenon of spirit photography,” notes Schoonover. This photo-cultural turn is interestingly echoed a century later within the cryptozoological community. Cryptozoology, the study of unknown animals, famously includes: Bigfeet, Lake Monsters, Chupacabras and UFOs. Cryptozoology, is well known for believing firmly in creatures that are not supposed to exist. Facing on-going mockery from established science, cryptozoologists continue their quests for unknown animals armed with ambiguous photo-documents. Rampant Photoshopping is the obvious hoaxer at this threshold, but growing allusions to scientific methodologies amongst cryptozoologists have taken aim at issues of image clarity too, as I’ll recount momentarily. Nonetheless, unknown animals have thus far eluded physical capture. Like ectoplasm they are ensnared only as indexical traces.
In 1967, in what would seem to be the apotheosis of sasquatch sightings, frame 352 of the Patterson-Gimlin filmstrip inscribed its indelible mark. Today, with increased accessibility of high-definition cameras and high-end digital imaging options, prosumers are on the rise and, cryptozoologists notwithstanding, there is much excitement about the capabilities of these digital instruments. These days, sasquatch sightings must provide explicit information about the unknown. Mystery apes must adhere to the guidelines laid out by the Patterson-Gimlin model. Panopticonfident, today’s conscientious cryptozoologist is prone to dismiss “any photo requiring equal parts interpretation and imagination,” as Sasquatch researcher Alton Higgins asserts in Evaluating Purported Sasquatch Photographic Evidence.
Reversal of an over-heated Sasquatch. The Blobsquatch emerged but nobody paid attention because this paradigm wasn’t shifting along a linear path. A personification of noise, of blurriness, of what writer Svetlana Boym calls “broken-tech.” In Boym’s Off-Modern Manifesto she describes broken-tech as “Not Luditte but ludic…it challenges destruction with play.” The Blobsquatch toys with the Sasquatch hunters expectations, erring on the side of audacity, opening up a new territory, one that is off the beaten path. The Blobsquatch’s stomping ground is the margin of error, the duration of uncertainty that confabulates (or condemns). “[This] margin of error is our margin of freedom. It’s a choice beyond the multiple choices programmed for us…The error is a chance encounter between us and the machines in which we surprise each other.” (Boym)




