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
Monday, October 22, 2007
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)