Next class: 09/22
Ways of Seeing by John Berger
Benjamin and the Political Economy of the Photograph by W. J. T. Mitchell
Rhetoric of the Image by Roland Barthes
Photography within the Humanities by Susan Sontag
The order above is recommended. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me.
Thoughts on Berger: I agree with what Berger says in the beginning of how, “The way we see things is affected by what we know or what we believe in.” Although I don't think there should be an “or” in that sentence. Yes we may know something and not believe in it but it still affects our ways of seeing. I like how he talks about the image has an embedded was of seeing because it really does. We, as a photographer, choose the angle, composition, etc. to what we have chosen to record in that image. We, as a viewer, need to be aware of that in order to, I think, properly see an image. If we get stuck on only thinking about why the photographer chose this view then we will never truly understand the photograph. We need to somewhat distance ourselves to see from our perspective in order to gain a better understanding of the photograph.
ReplyDeleteThoughts on Mitchell: When Mitchell talks about the aura I was getting slightly confused since it seems like he was going back and forth about it. It confused me because my thoughts on an aura is it could be anything. I don't think the aura is just “the living qualities of the subject.” I think the photograph itself has an aura to it just by itself. Then going deeper into the image the subject and background and other components of the image have their own aura. I do not think the camera dispels the aura of things by reproducing them. I think in a way it makes that thing more accessible and spreads the aura of that thing with others since it can be reproduced many times.
Thoughts on Barthes: In The Rhetoric of the Image, I felt like at times Barthes was going on and on too much which made this reading somewhat difficult to read at first. When he says, “The photograph, message without a code,... even when denoted, is a coded message.” I agree with him. I think every photograph has some kind of code behind it weather we're aware of it or not, it's there. When the photographer is aware of it, it is a stronger code which is used for reasons. I think the code is the “pseudo-truth” that he talks about. The code we see we do not realize is a code since we have been “conditioned” to see it because of our culture.
Thoughts on Sontag: I absolutely loved this reading. I loved it because by the end of it, her words helped me remember why I love photography and why I love what I'm doing now in my life. She, in a way, helped regain the spark the pull me out of the slump I've been in since the summer. I feel like she helped do this for me because of the position that she writes from. An intellectual, outside, photo junkie perspective. All these arguments about weather photography is an art form or not, I think drags me down in a way since to me I think the argument is so generalized that with just that simple question the debate has already been lost by both sides. I totally agree with Sontag when she writes, “In some way I would suggest that photography is not so much an art as a meta-art. It's an art which devours other art. It is a creation, a creation in the form of some certain kind of visual image, but it also cannibalizes and very concretely reproduces other forms of art; there is a creation of images, images which would not exist it we did not have the camera.” That last part about images is the reason I started photographing in the beginning. There were things I saw that I had not seen images of before that I wanted to capture.
Images:
1. http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/ for September 21, 2011
2. http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/cottonmouth-north-carolina/
3. http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/ray-key-west/
4. http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/bumblebee-flowers/
5. http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/badwater-basin-california/
Ways of Seeing
ReplyDeleteWhat John Berger is talking about in “Ways of Seeing” is how over the centuries, the way we look at an image has changed. For example, he takes a quote from a two volume book that was the study of Frans Hals. In this book it goes on to state that he was commissioned to paint portraits by the governor and his wife. As a poor and destitute painter, he wanted to portray this group of people who were of wealth themselves as who they really were. That is, he made sure that the hats on the men were tilted to the side (a fashion trend at the time), and faces looking like they were drunk (also considered to be fine at the time). Each of the ladies in the paintings also stands out, but are equal at the same time.
When cameras came into the picture, the way we see the world started to change as well. What could only be imagined in a painting as being real when produced, can now be known as truth. That is, if we see a picture of a landscape, we know that the subject is there and that the lighting was such at the time of exposure. However, when we see a picture of a painting, the actual paintings meaning has now been changed. Why? This is because we have now taken a photo of this painting and can reproduce it as many times as we want. We can make mugs, ties, wallpaper, etc, so that the general public can now have access to it. Whereas the original is probably hanging in an art gallery or museum somewhere where one would have to pay to see it.
Mitchell: Mitchell talks a lot about the aura of a photograph and how it affects the reproduction of an image. Mitchell claims that by reproducing an image it decreases or even eliminates the aura that that image once processed. I slightly agree with this, I don’t think the aura is completely erased only that it has changed. The aura of seeing an “original” piece of work at a museum is different from the aura it gives when viewing it on an online gallery. The aura is still there its vibe has just changed.
ReplyDeleteSontag: It was nice reading about photography from Sontag’s point of view. It’s not often that I hear about photography from someone as educated about it but does not actually take any photos. I think the debate over whether photography is considered art is a valid argument but not one that I like to get involved in. Each side can be argued to no end. I think it is just important to recognize each form of art. Each medium takes a certain amount of involvement and a different set of tools. Photography happens to be a very mechanical medium, but the real skill is the vision behind the work and the execution of it. With the use of lens we are able to look at the world in a different way. Our range of seeing has either been dramatically narrowed or widened along with the depth of field. Looking through the lens has dramatically altered the way that I see my world. I know can look at a scene and see the big picture but also the small details and shapes that appear when the scene is narrowed down.
Barthes: I enjoyed Barthes reading because it was a change of pace. It was much easier to understand the “codes” in an image when we are talking about an advertisement. We see advertisements all the time so we never really acknowledge how our brain comes to understand that combination of images and text. We give meaning to things that may not really have a meaning at all as well as associating objects with other things. It was much easier to understand his points when he was using something as straight to the point as an advertisement rather than a fine art image.
Berger: I had never really thought about some of the points Berger brought up until I had read this. His point about how the meaning of an image changes over time actually makes a bit of sense. An image taken one hundred years ago will have a completely different meaning to us than it did back then. We are influenced by so many other things now and just the simple fact that the times have changed (the same can be said for an image taken even a decade ago). We view an image with the understanding for the time period but we can’t help but view it under the circumstances of today and our current knowledge. Even looking back at old family photos, I know I was there and I feel differently about those moments now than I did then. Some of my favorite images I took in high school I can’t stand now just simply because I see them in a new light.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStarting off with Berger was refreshing, I really liked the style it was written in. Somewhat witty but easily understandable. He made a lot of interesting points that stuck out to me. The fact that we see art from the past differently than when it was made. We see art from the past as art from the past and just that, the meaning is somewhat gone and the only reason to display them is because they are relics. It made me think about the contemporary art that we make today and how will they be seen in the future? Also, what if the concept in art fades away after a particular time? Like when we talked about the mona lisa, the concept is pretty much gone and it has become something completely different. What if that happens with all things considered art? To push further on looking at art differently because it is original I like how he describes this book for the painting "The Virgin of the Rocks" that is filled up with information proving that its the original. So when we look at art, we are more focused on how it is the original image of the original copy that we saw. I find that fascinating.
ReplyDeleteI did not find Mitchell's interesting all that much. The only thing I got from it was that he was explaining Benjamin's indecisiveness about if photography is art or not. In my opinion this whole thing could be summarized in one quote I found in the essay. "Does the camera provide a material incarnation of objective, scientific representation by mechanizing the system of perspective? Or is it an instrument of contemplative materialism a purely ideological apparatus whose monocular vision ratifies the metaphysical centering on the subject.?"
For some reason I found this one difficult to read for me. I like how Barthes provides these layers to the image deconstructing the add piece by piece. The Linguistic meaning which are the words, the Denoted which is the literal image and then the connoted which is the symbolic message.
Sontag was a simple read and refreshing as well because it was easiest to read. Basically simplified the process of what Benjamin was saying and I liked how she sated that arguing about weather photography is an art or not is not worth it because it is too broad of a question and it is obvious now that photography has prevailed. Thinking about that it is completely true because we are in fact in school for photography, learning how to read and make images!
http://www.theasc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/12_walk-through-paraidse-garden.jpg
http://www.theasc.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/13_girl-emerging.jpg
http://post.browndailyherald.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/muniz3-credit-sikkema-jenkins-co-nyc.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-BxkffPzQS2w/Ta8-UvtO5AI/AAAAAAAAAoU/8mtuWytrOkk/s1600/vm2.jpg
Ways of Seeing by John berger is a very interesting way to think about past and future art work or pieces of art which i thought is unique. he talks about how you interpet work by the way you see it and they way you see can mean milti meanings. he also talks about the social meaning of art. I liked gome of his points that he made through the reading but there were some that i didn't agree on. the main thing that i liked about the ways of seeing that it thought you a different view on seeing art .
ReplyDeletesontag it was interesting reasy the back and forth dissuasions if photography is art. it is a good subject to discuss but my thoughts is that photography is art because you work hard on an image like painters i think it should consider be art.But i do believe that people can just shot an image not work on it and say that is ar which i dont believe that photography would be called art.
Rhetoric of the Image i thought was difficult to comprehend and understand what he was trying to say. he talked about codes that codes mean something within an image which i thought that was a interesting concept to think about.