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??
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)