Lecture on Monday was interesting. I learned a lot about scientific images and how they have been used in relation to visual culture.
Our seminar was good - it was interesting to hear what others thought about the chapter that we read. The guest speaker was very interesting as well. It was great to see her work and hear about the use of wax in visual culture and artwork. It really is a lost art that should be preserved.
I cannot believe that it is the last week of class - it has gone by so fast and I have enjoyed this course. I have learned a lot about visual culture, art and, of course, myself. I look forward to my next course and continuing my studies.
Thank you for all your knowledge that you have passed onto us during your lectures. They have been informative and interesting. I really did like the class - it was so great for me to learn about something new. It has given me some perspectives on life in general that I never thought about. Its been great to sit with other students and learn something from them as well.
Thanks for a great semester!
Lesa Mansfield
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Museums, memorials and memories lecture
This week our lecture was about museums, commemorations and memories. It was a good lecture and the film was very interesting.
I learned a lot about museums. I didn't know how they began. This part of the lecture reminded me of the Antiques Roadshow on televison - they are private citizens who collect items and never show them to anyone but family and friends. It was very similar to me to think of the show when we were listening to the lecture about the cabinets. I found this very interesting that people did this in the 18th century and we continue the same sort of tradition to this day - most of us today I think begin by collecting family items that mean something to us.
The film was very good. It was fascinating what the artist/photographer did with his work, how he displayed his work. It was very different and hauntingly eerie to look at some of his work in the ways he displayed it - particularly the photos that were displayed in the water.
The project that we watched come together in Manhattan was beautiful. The final product was somewhat sad to me - seeing the residents' own words was interesting that they knew so much of the history of the area; sad as well about what they must have had to live through.
We were asked to consider some questions while watching the film. The first question was regarding what kinds of visual technologies the artist used in his public installations. It was interesting to see that with all the technology at his disposal that he used a slide projector, a film strip; it was only the last project in Manhattan that he used a technology that was more up to date - laser projection. It was actually effective - the use of the film strip to show the film about the holocaust. The technology that he used in that project in Amsterdam was appropriate with the film itself and the images - wasn't too technical, just basic and simple to show something that was very tragic.
It was interesting to see where he showed the materials - on the streets where the parade actually happened, in neighbourhoods. I found his statement about how he didn't want to loose the project that was being shown on buildings - for it to be taken as an advertisement. It was very interesting to see the reactions of the people who stopped to watch.
These technologies allowed Attie to use writing as a process of memory and thought; the use of interviewing people from the Lower East Side; used their actual handwritten materials to project it on the buildings where they lived; memories were laser projected onto the buildings. The memories were projected FROM one person and TO another via the buildings it was on - you could tell in the crowd that people who were watching the written memories lived them too.
It was a fascinating project and he touched a lot of people with the images on the buildings.
I learned a lot about museums. I didn't know how they began. This part of the lecture reminded me of the Antiques Roadshow on televison - they are private citizens who collect items and never show them to anyone but family and friends. It was very similar to me to think of the show when we were listening to the lecture about the cabinets. I found this very interesting that people did this in the 18th century and we continue the same sort of tradition to this day - most of us today I think begin by collecting family items that mean something to us.
The film was very good. It was fascinating what the artist/photographer did with his work, how he displayed his work. It was very different and hauntingly eerie to look at some of his work in the ways he displayed it - particularly the photos that were displayed in the water.
The project that we watched come together in Manhattan was beautiful. The final product was somewhat sad to me - seeing the residents' own words was interesting that they knew so much of the history of the area; sad as well about what they must have had to live through.
We were asked to consider some questions while watching the film. The first question was regarding what kinds of visual technologies the artist used in his public installations. It was interesting to see that with all the technology at his disposal that he used a slide projector, a film strip; it was only the last project in Manhattan that he used a technology that was more up to date - laser projection. It was actually effective - the use of the film strip to show the film about the holocaust. The technology that he used in that project in Amsterdam was appropriate with the film itself and the images - wasn't too technical, just basic and simple to show something that was very tragic.
It was interesting to see where he showed the materials - on the streets where the parade actually happened, in neighbourhoods. I found his statement about how he didn't want to loose the project that was being shown on buildings - for it to be taken as an advertisement. It was very interesting to see the reactions of the people who stopped to watch.
These technologies allowed Attie to use writing as a process of memory and thought; the use of interviewing people from the Lower East Side; used their actual handwritten materials to project it on the buildings where they lived; memories were laser projected onto the buildings. The memories were projected FROM one person and TO another via the buildings it was on - you could tell in the crowd that people who were watching the written memories lived them too.
It was a fascinating project and he touched a lot of people with the images on the buildings.
Advertising and Fashion Lecture
It seems like a while ago but we had a lecture on advertising and fashion on November 12th. The reading was interesting. I cannot believe that in advertising the same images are used so frequently - and from 40 years ago just a little more up to date. I am doing my final project on motorcycles and its culture and its amazing to me the advertisements for motorcycles are so very male oriented. We haven't come that far, now have we!
Friday, November 9, 2007
Politics and Activism
This past Monday we went to the E-classroom for a library research workshop (our third of the course). It was interesting to learn some more about the library website and searching. Practice will be beneficial as with anything.
We watched the film Manufactured Landscapes by Edward Burtynsky. It was quite an interesting film. I learned a lot about what we are doing to the earth and about China. It was unbelievable to me some of the pictures that he took of workers, etc. there.
When watching the film I also considered the focus questions that were handed out in class. The first one asked about the techniques used by both the photography Burtynsky and the director of the documentary film (Jennifer Baichwal) and how the two forms were brought together in the film. Some of what I observed regarding this question(s) were: the way he took the picture of the workers outside in the street, from up high on a podium/tower, it was quite a picture with the similar colour of yellow running through out the shot then leading from the workers to the yellow line down the street then to yellow flowers and a happy face. I thought the pictures in the film of the faces of the workers as they got into trouble for their shoddy work was very sad in contrast to the pictures just prior of the pouring out into the street. Buchiwal filmed looking up at Burtynsky while he looked through his camera setting up a picture - a picture inside of a picture.
The second question asked was regarding how a quote from our textbook (p. 131) related to the film. I found that his pictures were quite a contrast to the film but without words to tell you what was going on some of the pictures lost their meaning for me. In the introduction to the film I found some of the pictures hard to figure out what exactly things were. Some of the pictures were self explanatory and were to me scary (what are we doing to the earth?) - some of the pictures of the pollution, how the one shot of the lake or river looked, the quarry pictures. It was shocking to me from those pictures how much waste we are creating by raping the earth of its valuable and sometimes unreplaceable resources. Beacause of this, I found some of the pictures he took depressing. The pictures of the waste that was crushed together into cubes and then stacked together - looked like a patchwork of some kind, almost like the way fields look from the air (fields of corn, wheat, etc. look so wholesome compared to the waste). I always knew that the were factories that make every day items by the hundreds but Burtynsky's pictures of the sheer numbers of factory workers was like a sea (only of people all wearing the same colour).
The last questions are regarding environmental issues and how Burtynsky and ATSA are similar in their approaches. Also how are they different? And what my opinion is of the effect in terms of getting attention to the politics of the environment. First the differences: ATSA pictures can be everywhere all the time; pictures, posters, campaigns that are always 'in your face'; they don't let you forget. Burtynsky's pictures and film was, I found, much more shocking and real; his statement in the film about the former oil ships that were being salvaged by hand and how he realized that he was driving his car, filling it with gas, his tripod, and the film for the pictures were all made with or used oil in some form - there just for him to go film the ships being torn apart; kind of ironic!
Some similarities are: both show political viewpoints very well but I think that the feeling you got from the film will be fleeting. The pictures and posters, etc. that ATSA does, they are around you all the time but sooner or later you become desensitized to them, they become commonplace, just another thing you 'see' every day.
His analogy of the oil was an excellent one - that it is the key building block over the last century. This is a very interesting point of view.
We watched the film Manufactured Landscapes by Edward Burtynsky. It was quite an interesting film. I learned a lot about what we are doing to the earth and about China. It was unbelievable to me some of the pictures that he took of workers, etc. there.
When watching the film I also considered the focus questions that were handed out in class. The first one asked about the techniques used by both the photography Burtynsky and the director of the documentary film (Jennifer Baichwal) and how the two forms were brought together in the film. Some of what I observed regarding this question(s) were: the way he took the picture of the workers outside in the street, from up high on a podium/tower, it was quite a picture with the similar colour of yellow running through out the shot then leading from the workers to the yellow line down the street then to yellow flowers and a happy face. I thought the pictures in the film of the faces of the workers as they got into trouble for their shoddy work was very sad in contrast to the pictures just prior of the pouring out into the street. Buchiwal filmed looking up at Burtynsky while he looked through his camera setting up a picture - a picture inside of a picture.
The second question asked was regarding how a quote from our textbook (p. 131) related to the film. I found that his pictures were quite a contrast to the film but without words to tell you what was going on some of the pictures lost their meaning for me. In the introduction to the film I found some of the pictures hard to figure out what exactly things were. Some of the pictures were self explanatory and were to me scary (what are we doing to the earth?) - some of the pictures of the pollution, how the one shot of the lake or river looked, the quarry pictures. It was shocking to me from those pictures how much waste we are creating by raping the earth of its valuable and sometimes unreplaceable resources. Beacause of this, I found some of the pictures he took depressing. The pictures of the waste that was crushed together into cubes and then stacked together - looked like a patchwork of some kind, almost like the way fields look from the air (fields of corn, wheat, etc. look so wholesome compared to the waste). I always knew that the were factories that make every day items by the hundreds but Burtynsky's pictures of the sheer numbers of factory workers was like a sea (only of people all wearing the same colour).
The last questions are regarding environmental issues and how Burtynsky and ATSA are similar in their approaches. Also how are they different? And what my opinion is of the effect in terms of getting attention to the politics of the environment. First the differences: ATSA pictures can be everywhere all the time; pictures, posters, campaigns that are always 'in your face'; they don't let you forget. Burtynsky's pictures and film was, I found, much more shocking and real; his statement in the film about the former oil ships that were being salvaged by hand and how he realized that he was driving his car, filling it with gas, his tripod, and the film for the pictures were all made with or used oil in some form - there just for him to go film the ships being torn apart; kind of ironic!
Some similarities are: both show political viewpoints very well but I think that the feeling you got from the film will be fleeting. The pictures and posters, etc. that ATSA does, they are around you all the time but sooner or later you become desensitized to them, they become commonplace, just another thing you 'see' every day.
His analogy of the oil was an excellent one - that it is the key building block over the last century. This is a very interesting point of view.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Visual Culture in Cyberspace
In our seminar on Monday we discussed the film and it was quite an interesting discussion. There was quite a reaction to the slaughter of the pig in the film we watched. Although it was a set up by the photographer, it was a depiction of a long lost ritual that was being recorded. Don't we all record rituals of some sort in our lives that are 'set up' (graduation photos, weddings, birthdays, holidays).
The lecture on Monday was interesting. Personally I don't really get some of the online art. Particularly the Lotus Blossom - it was so fast it was hard for me to tell what was being said (or to read) and it was totally lost for me. Is that art? I am not sure I agree that's art .... it certainly is visual. So how do the artists make any kind of living doing their art online? What about people stealing their material?
We were asked some questions in lecture. One of the questions was regarding whether or not the internet is similar or different to other technologies of visual culture we have looked at. Its probably similar and different .... different to paintings, sculputure, etc. Similar to advertisements in magazines, newspaper articles/pictures, textbooks.
Some of the advantages and disadvantages of making/viewing art on the internet:
Pros - everyone can view it no matter where they are; its global art; it can be incorporated in other pieces relatively easily; you can be more creative in combining pieces from all over the internet; artists will get exposure they may not ordinarily be able to achieve.
Cons - it can be used any where; copyright means very little; it can be combined with other personal pictures which can hurt people; once its on the internet is really 'yours' anymore; how do you get credit for something you created on the internet?
In question number three - would the artists be doing something they would otherwise not be able to do if it were not for the internet? Well, certainly Lotus Blossom may not exist without the internet; you would may not be able to see the Last Supper without the internet. The phone experiment could be done without the internet (although may not be as interesting?).
For me some of the art that is on the internet is a great thing - most of us may not be able to see some of the great works of art without it. Some of the paintings are absolutely unbelievable to me - the colours are so vibrant! I ordinarily wouldn't see things like a Monet or Picasso or the Mona Lisa without the internet (much easier to view than in textbooks). The internet makes research for projects in school or for a paper much easier. Of course, as with anything in life it comes with a price too. Art can be manipulated, used for other things that the artist probably never thought of having it used for (that can include anything from using it for a blog to pornography). We have so many ways of manipulating information and pictures we have almost totally lost what is real and what isn't any more.
How can we keep up with how fast the technology is going? And all the questions/responsibilities that come with it??
The lecture on Monday was interesting. Personally I don't really get some of the online art. Particularly the Lotus Blossom - it was so fast it was hard for me to tell what was being said (or to read) and it was totally lost for me. Is that art? I am not sure I agree that's art .... it certainly is visual. So how do the artists make any kind of living doing their art online? What about people stealing their material?
We were asked some questions in lecture. One of the questions was regarding whether or not the internet is similar or different to other technologies of visual culture we have looked at. Its probably similar and different .... different to paintings, sculputure, etc. Similar to advertisements in magazines, newspaper articles/pictures, textbooks.
Some of the advantages and disadvantages of making/viewing art on the internet:
Pros - everyone can view it no matter where they are; its global art; it can be incorporated in other pieces relatively easily; you can be more creative in combining pieces from all over the internet; artists will get exposure they may not ordinarily be able to achieve.
Cons - it can be used any where; copyright means very little; it can be combined with other personal pictures which can hurt people; once its on the internet is really 'yours' anymore; how do you get credit for something you created on the internet?
In question number three - would the artists be doing something they would otherwise not be able to do if it were not for the internet? Well, certainly Lotus Blossom may not exist without the internet; you would may not be able to see the Last Supper without the internet. The phone experiment could be done without the internet (although may not be as interesting?).
For me some of the art that is on the internet is a great thing - most of us may not be able to see some of the great works of art without it. Some of the paintings are absolutely unbelievable to me - the colours are so vibrant! I ordinarily wouldn't see things like a Monet or Picasso or the Mona Lisa without the internet (much easier to view than in textbooks). The internet makes research for projects in school or for a paper much easier. Of course, as with anything in life it comes with a price too. Art can be manipulated, used for other things that the artist probably never thought of having it used for (that can include anything from using it for a blog to pornography). We have so many ways of manipulating information and pictures we have almost totally lost what is real and what isn't any more.
How can we keep up with how fast the technology is going? And all the questions/responsibilities that come with it??
Monday, October 22, 2007
Shelby Lee Adams
While on the internet searching for Adams' book I found the following website with a story done about his work on the CBC Sunday Morning program (actually while watching the clip tonight I remembered seeing this show back in the spring of this year). Here is the link to the site for CBC Sunday and the video clip:
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2007/04/040807_5.html
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2007/04/040807_5.html
Mass Media lecture tonight
After our lecture tonight I had to come and write about the documentary film that we saw. It was facinating to watch. It was very interesting - it depicted how people really live, love, mourn. It was actually heartwarming to see that they do not isolate those family members who aren't born 'normal' - they kept their families together and did it unselfishly.
I found some of the comments from other photographers, etc. very negative about his books and pictures. I found his pictures to be a refreshing depiction of what life is really like for these people - hard, weary, poor, happy, sad - its what we all live every day. The pictures were not taken of things/people that we really want to see - maybe that's one reason why others objected?
It was a facinating documentary film - and I would like to see more of his work; I will have to look for his pictures and/or books.
I found some of the comments from other photographers, etc. very negative about his books and pictures. I found his pictures to be a refreshing depiction of what life is really like for these people - hard, weary, poor, happy, sad - its what we all live every day. The pictures were not taken of things/people that we really want to see - maybe that's one reason why others objected?
It was a facinating documentary film - and I would like to see more of his work; I will have to look for his pictures and/or books.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Visual Culture and Mass Media
I just finished reading the chapter on The Mass Media and the Public Sphere. I found it very interesting reading - some of which I have lived through and remember vividly. It was amazing to me while reading to think how quickly 'media' has changed in the 50 years since television came into the home.
It was interesting to me to read about how we categorize 'media' in some kind of hierarchy making one more important than the rest - not unlike art and how we value some forms of art higher than others. Newspapers are probably considered by most as the most truthful in reporting the news; but what about magazines? Ones like The National Geographic, MacLeans and Time are just as respected as a truthful source of news. I wonder though how we managed to be so convinced of this fact. Who decided that those forms were more truthful - more respected? Why does television news channels (such as CNN which was used as an example in the chapter) become more respected? How many times have you yourself say you heard it on CNN as if that means it is the truth?
I think that since the revolution of different types of 'media' there have become more public spheres. As it stated in the chapter there are many types of public spheres that overlap each other (theorist Nancy Fraser); she cited spheres such as working-class, religious, feminist, nationalist. Today I think there are other spheres that can be identified such as age and generational. These are I think in part due to the explosion of the use of the internet and other forms of information gathering (electronic multi-media devices such as the iPhone).
In the chapter it gave a couple of examples of how events were reported (Kennedy's assassination, Princess Diana's death) - it is because of media that we see these reports almost in real time as well as the stories being reported over and over throughout the day. A couple of other examples of this is the Oklahoma bombing and the World Trade Centre. Particularly with the World Trade Centre - I heard many people state that they wish they hadn't had to see it so much. It polarized many and had young school children worrying about it happening to them. Sometimes media reporting of these types of events are good and bad at the same time. How many times do we need to re-live these events?
In the textbook chapter it talked about the coverage of Princess Diana's funeral - it became a media event; I am not sure that is a good thing. I wonder which was covered by the media more - Diana and Charles' wedding or Diana's funeral. Should the media be covering a funeral? Does the public have a 'right to know' in this case? What about common decency? How is it we have made some people into public figures? Is it simply by way of the media reporting on their every move? Is this a good thing?
I am looking forward to discussion in our seminar on Monday; and look forward to the lecture as well. Its an interesting topic to me - especially since we are living right in the middle of it.
It was interesting to me to read about how we categorize 'media' in some kind of hierarchy making one more important than the rest - not unlike art and how we value some forms of art higher than others. Newspapers are probably considered by most as the most truthful in reporting the news; but what about magazines? Ones like The National Geographic, MacLeans and Time are just as respected as a truthful source of news. I wonder though how we managed to be so convinced of this fact. Who decided that those forms were more truthful - more respected? Why does television news channels (such as CNN which was used as an example in the chapter) become more respected? How many times have you yourself say you heard it on CNN as if that means it is the truth?
I think that since the revolution of different types of 'media' there have become more public spheres. As it stated in the chapter there are many types of public spheres that overlap each other (theorist Nancy Fraser); she cited spheres such as working-class, religious, feminist, nationalist. Today I think there are other spheres that can be identified such as age and generational. These are I think in part due to the explosion of the use of the internet and other forms of information gathering (electronic multi-media devices such as the iPhone).
In the chapter it gave a couple of examples of how events were reported (Kennedy's assassination, Princess Diana's death) - it is because of media that we see these reports almost in real time as well as the stories being reported over and over throughout the day. A couple of other examples of this is the Oklahoma bombing and the World Trade Centre. Particularly with the World Trade Centre - I heard many people state that they wish they hadn't had to see it so much. It polarized many and had young school children worrying about it happening to them. Sometimes media reporting of these types of events are good and bad at the same time. How many times do we need to re-live these events?
In the textbook chapter it talked about the coverage of Princess Diana's funeral - it became a media event; I am not sure that is a good thing. I wonder which was covered by the media more - Diana and Charles' wedding or Diana's funeral. Should the media be covering a funeral? Does the public have a 'right to know' in this case? What about common decency? How is it we have made some people into public figures? Is it simply by way of the media reporting on their every move? Is this a good thing?
I am looking forward to discussion in our seminar on Monday; and look forward to the lecture as well. Its an interesting topic to me - especially since we are living right in the middle of it.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Imagery, Power and Social Culture
Wow, what an wonderful lecture!! I wanted to hear more. The advertisements made me think that we aren't that much different from the 1930's or 1950's - ads still advertise what we are lacking and how to achieve it. Ads today still have women primarily in them looking out at the audience (male and female), although there are more ads these days with men in them. The message is just a bit different and directed at a female audience (our gaze is more of a gawk).
The pictures from the prison in Iraq - makes me wonder what kind of person takes those pictures to share with others (what kind of thought process is behind that).
The question of the image of the aboriginal people - we want them to conform to what we think is 'normal'; but what is normal? Is it white, anglo people? Why? Who made these decisions? Why do we even think about race when we look at people? Why does it really matter?
Some things to think about - great lecture tonight.
The pictures from the prison in Iraq - makes me wonder what kind of person takes those pictures to share with others (what kind of thought process is behind that).
The question of the image of the aboriginal people - we want them to conform to what we think is 'normal'; but what is normal? Is it white, anglo people? Why? Who made these decisions? Why do we even think about race when we look at people? Why does it really matter?
Some things to think about - great lecture tonight.
Monday, October 8, 2007
Using great works of art for advertising
Hi everyone:
A couple of weeks ago we talked about advertising and using great works of art in an advertisement. Last week there was a sidewalk sale at the Campus Store (formerly known as the Bookstore). They sent out a flyer to all the departments - I received one since I work on campus - and it was a sale on T-shirts; the image of a person wearing a baseball cap and one of the T-shirts that are were on sale. It was the Mona Lisa in the ad. If you haven't seen it I will post it here tomorrow (I have it on my computer at work). I work closely with one of the employees at the Campus Store and had her send me electronically the file they used to print the flyers.
I was surprised to see it - its just not right to use works of art such as the Mona Lisa for ads. For me it cheapens the company that is trying to sell me something - can no one come up with an original thought!? It makes you wonder what other images are being used for something other than the originally intended purpose - probably loads of images. Makes me also wonder who has images of people and what they might be used for??
A couple of weeks ago we talked about advertising and using great works of art in an advertisement. Last week there was a sidewalk sale at the Campus Store (formerly known as the Bookstore). They sent out a flyer to all the departments - I received one since I work on campus - and it was a sale on T-shirts; the image of a person wearing a baseball cap and one of the T-shirts that are were on sale. It was the Mona Lisa in the ad. If you haven't seen it I will post it here tomorrow (I have it on my computer at work). I work closely with one of the employees at the Campus Store and had her send me electronically the file they used to print the flyers.
I was surprised to see it - its just not right to use works of art such as the Mona Lisa for ads. For me it cheapens the company that is trying to sell me something - can no one come up with an original thought!? It makes you wonder what other images are being used for something other than the originally intended purpose - probably loads of images. Makes me also wonder who has images of people and what they might be used for??
Hockney film last week
Hi everyone:
Well, I read Keri's post last week and went to the links that she had on it with articles, etc. about David Hockney's film which we watched last week. I am not an artist, I just know what I like but even I don't believe much of what he had to say in the film. How could anyone believe that no one could draw or paint from what they were viewing or memory. After reading some of the articles and opinions in the links it got me to thinking about what he had said in the film. I cannot believe that anyone could think that not one of the artists he mentioned (I won't try to name any - I just brutalize them!) didn't draw or paint their works.
When thinking again about the video I noticed that Hockney tried reproducing works that were of people; other than the one building there were no landscapes, gardens, nature, etc. I really don't think he proved anything; I certainly do not believe his theories - can't image that any of those artists used that method to create everything they ever painted.
I went to the Campus Store last week when they had the sidewalk sale - found a book called Impressionists. I bought it and there were some amazing pictures of art work by Monet, Manet, Cezanne, Degas and others. Its hard for me to believe that these were created by someone - they are absolutely amazing! Harder for me to believe that these artists possibly used camera obscura to create them - according to Hockney.
It occured to me about the film and his theory that it was as if he were saying that the art world not only cheated but that they discovered a crude version of today's technology (specifically photography).
Well, I read Keri's post last week and went to the links that she had on it with articles, etc. about David Hockney's film which we watched last week. I am not an artist, I just know what I like but even I don't believe much of what he had to say in the film. How could anyone believe that no one could draw or paint from what they were viewing or memory. After reading some of the articles and opinions in the links it got me to thinking about what he had said in the film. I cannot believe that anyone could think that not one of the artists he mentioned (I won't try to name any - I just brutalize them!) didn't draw or paint their works.
When thinking again about the video I noticed that Hockney tried reproducing works that were of people; other than the one building there were no landscapes, gardens, nature, etc. I really don't think he proved anything; I certainly do not believe his theories - can't image that any of those artists used that method to create everything they ever painted.
I went to the Campus Store last week when they had the sidewalk sale - found a book called Impressionists. I bought it and there were some amazing pictures of art work by Monet, Manet, Cezanne, Degas and others. Its hard for me to believe that these were created by someone - they are absolutely amazing! Harder for me to believe that these artists possibly used camera obscura to create them - according to Hockney.
It occured to me about the film and his theory that it was as if he were saying that the art world not only cheated but that they discovered a crude version of today's technology (specifically photography).
Friday, September 28, 2007
Well, I finally made it!!
Hi Keri (and anyone else who reads this):
Well, this is my first time blogging and let me tell you the experience of setting this up was very frustrating but now I think worth it!
I am new to school and am an older student than your typical first year university student. Three weeks have gone by since beginning this course and I am finding it very interesting. Things I never really thought about when viewing the world around me is now different. The lecture this week on photography was interesting. I learned a lot but never really thought about pictures we take and what others might do with them. I was reading one of the seminar leaders entry about Kate Winslett and the picture of her on GQ .... I guess I have the same attitude towards photos .... once they are taken who knows what happens to them. Even before the technology we have today pictures could be altered .... airbrushing to make models look better than they appeared. I have three children .... when they get their school pictures done one of the questions on the form to fill out for choosing the picture is .... do you want it altered (remove blemishes and such). I don't think we should be altering the pictures: that is how they looked on the picture day - flaws and all - but its what makes my children who they are!
This course is certainly making me think about visual culture and what we see everyday in the news, tv, magazines, etc. I never realized before how much we look at things and view them as true (at least that is the case for myself!). It has made me think much more about the things we see around us. Loads of questions .... not many answers, yet!
Well, that's it for now .... but I am looking forward to class on Monday.
Well, this is my first time blogging and let me tell you the experience of setting this up was very frustrating but now I think worth it!
I am new to school and am an older student than your typical first year university student. Three weeks have gone by since beginning this course and I am finding it very interesting. Things I never really thought about when viewing the world around me is now different. The lecture this week on photography was interesting. I learned a lot but never really thought about pictures we take and what others might do with them. I was reading one of the seminar leaders entry about Kate Winslett and the picture of her on GQ .... I guess I have the same attitude towards photos .... once they are taken who knows what happens to them. Even before the technology we have today pictures could be altered .... airbrushing to make models look better than they appeared. I have three children .... when they get their school pictures done one of the questions on the form to fill out for choosing the picture is .... do you want it altered (remove blemishes and such). I don't think we should be altering the pictures: that is how they looked on the picture day - flaws and all - but its what makes my children who they are!
This course is certainly making me think about visual culture and what we see everyday in the news, tv, magazines, etc. I never realized before how much we look at things and view them as true (at least that is the case for myself!). It has made me think much more about the things we see around us. Loads of questions .... not many answers, yet!
Well, that's it for now .... but I am looking forward to class on Monday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)