I was watching this video, and it made me really start thinking about how easy it is to record information with the cameras that we have available to us in this day and time. It hit home with what we've talked about in class.
http://www.mymorningjacket.com/gogo/video/
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
JC
(Jessica was having trouble posting this, so here is her question.)
Most of us, while we have all spent a lot of time the darkroom, have not printed in traditional color format. The book addresses (P.305) the digitalizing of image making and the false innocence that follows. If each of you were asked to print in traditional color format would you choose different sorts of color assignments to pursue or would you continue with your original subject matter because the end result is still a two dimensional print? Also do you view traditional printing processes differently than inkjet printing (or images captured in digital format) and personally does it affect your overall view of the aura of the work?
Most of us, while we have all spent a lot of time the darkroom, have not printed in traditional color format. The book addresses (P.305) the digitalizing of image making and the false innocence that follows. If each of you were asked to print in traditional color format would you choose different sorts of color assignments to pursue or would you continue with your original subject matter because the end result is still a two dimensional print? Also do you view traditional printing processes differently than inkjet printing (or images captured in digital format) and personally does it affect your overall view of the aura of the work?
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Chapter 7
"The new malleability of the image may eventually lead to a profound undermining of photography's status as an inherently truthful pictorial form" (Ritchin)
Do you think this notion has already been solidified in how photography is viewed today? Does the truth even matter anymore?
It seems like people are becoming more passive about images that are altered, looking though a magazine one might say, "that's so photoshopped!" (now that I think about it, I hear this all the time) but people continue reading fashion/celebrity pollution*. What does this say about the society we live in? altered images find their way into "news" publications more frequently now, while most are caught, do you think there will be a time when these things commonly pass under-the-radar and are just accepted as fact?
* sorry?
And an additional sorry for being really bad at this.
And just because:
Do you think this notion has already been solidified in how photography is viewed today? Does the truth even matter anymore?
It seems like people are becoming more passive about images that are altered, looking though a magazine one might say, "that's so photoshopped!" (now that I think about it, I hear this all the time) but people continue reading fashion/celebrity pollution*. What does this say about the society we live in? altered images find their way into "news" publications more frequently now, while most are caught, do you think there will be a time when these things commonly pass under-the-radar and are just accepted as fact?
* sorry?
And an additional sorry for being really bad at this.
And just because:
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
A day late and a dollar short
Hi.
Some things to think about and answer in your journal with regards to this week's readings:
1. If there were no financial gain to be had, would you prefer to own the Edward Weston image, Neil's Torso (1925)- or the Sherrie Levine copy, After Edward Weston (1981)? Why? How is her appropriation of Edward Weston's photo different from Duchamp's Readymades?
2. Grundberg mentions "photography's inherent strain of postmodernism" and claims that the photographs of Walker Evans and Robert Frank both exhibit postmodern characteristics by "attempting to create a text with [their] photographs". Do you agree with his statement? Are their other modernist photographers who could be included in this category?
3. Given that both Grundberg and Crimp's essays were written 15-20 years ago, do you feel that their analysis of postmodernism and photography is relevant to today's artmaking and photography? It is often difficult to define the current epoch in which one is living- do you think that we are still in the postmodern era?
3.
Some things to think about and answer in your journal with regards to this week's readings:
1. If there were no financial gain to be had, would you prefer to own the Edward Weston image, Neil's Torso (1925)- or the Sherrie Levine copy, After Edward Weston (1981)? Why? How is her appropriation of Edward Weston's photo different from Duchamp's Readymades?
2. Grundberg mentions "photography's inherent strain of postmodernism" and claims that the photographs of Walker Evans and Robert Frank both exhibit postmodern characteristics by "attempting to create a text with [their] photographs". Do you agree with his statement? Are their other modernist photographers who could be included in this category?
3. Given that both Grundberg and Crimp's essays were written 15-20 years ago, do you feel that their analysis of postmodernism and photography is relevant to today's artmaking and photography? It is often difficult to define the current epoch in which one is living- do you think that we are still in the postmodern era?
3.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Chapter 6: Women/Identity
Women and their "role" in photography was discussed in conjunction with identity and misrepresentation of both.
Libby Anson states:
"The mere mention of the phrase of 'women's art' sends shivers down the art establishment spine - more radical feminists on the war-path! Feminism, advocacy of women's rights on the ground of equality, is usually misinterpreted to mean exclusively female, probably radical and, more than likely, shaven-headedly lesbian. It's curious how this misconception perpetuates!"
Do you believe "misconceptions" about women, such as this one, still exist in art? If so, in what way? Also, do you agree (why or why not) with the statement: "The presence of women photographers in the gallery is now taken for granted"? (pg. 282)
Libby Anson states:
"The mere mention of the phrase of 'women's art' sends shivers down the art establishment spine - more radical feminists on the war-path! Feminism, advocacy of women's rights on the ground of equality, is usually misinterpreted to mean exclusively female, probably radical and, more than likely, shaven-headedly lesbian. It's curious how this misconception perpetuates!"
Do you believe "misconceptions" about women, such as this one, still exist in art? If so, in what way? Also, do you agree (why or why not) with the statement: "The presence of women photographers in the gallery is now taken for granted"? (pg. 282)
Monday, March 23, 2009
Chapter Six
In this chapter Wells mentions factors that made the twentieth century a key era of Artistic Change, such as:
-The Growth of publishing, where futurist, cubist, surrealist, and, constructivist announced birth of their new art movement through manifestos by publishing them in magazines and journals.
- Dislocation of Artist, caused by the war and revolution, contributed a sense of art movements as international, as artist migrated within Europe or to North America, spreading ideas and making work which suggested new ways of seeing.
-The Growth of publishing, where futurist, cubist, surrealist, and, constructivist announced birth of their new art movement through manifestos by publishing them in magazines and journals.
- Dislocation of Artist, caused by the war and revolution, contributed a sense of art movements as international, as artist migrated within Europe or to North America, spreading ideas and making work which suggested new ways of seeing.
- Do you think now is a key era for artist change? Why or why not?
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Trevor Paglen
We talked about Trevor Paglen's black site work in class a while ago. He did a talk with Google back in February, but I just found this video on VVORK.com so I thought I would post it here. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)