PH 302 Theory and Criticism
Photography: Theory & Criticism will examine historic and contemporary philosophical, aesthetic, and epistemological topics addressing the evolution of theories germane to contemporary photographic discourse. As a class, we will address structuralism, post-structuralism, deconstruction, semiotics, and the taxonomy of visual representation from simulacrum to social classification analysis. Conceptual understanding and the successful application of the topics addressed throughout this course are designed to further develop your photographic lexicon. The application of thoughtful, theory-based ideas can be employed to promote visual solutions to challenges in the design, execution, and creation of your work. Theories and topics discussed in the readings will be introduced with supporting imagery for discussion and debate.
Active discussion and participation are core requirements of this course.
Kevin Cummings
ReplyDeleteTheory and Crit
11/2/2011
Edward Weston
I really enjoyed reading what Edward Weston had to say about photography and art. I agree that one must keep his/her equipment simple and not get all tie up with technology.
In the beginning, when photography first came on the scene, people didn't understand how a photograph could be art and those who went out and spent the time learning how to make a photograph, had no history to look at to make a better image. Today, we can look at images taken from the early years and decide if it was a good image or not and if so, take information such as lighting, poses, etc and produce a similar image. As photographers, we are often criticized for our work if we call ourselves artists, because we are not using a paint brush, pencil or some other object that we hold in our hands. Instead we use a mechanical device, which sees and captures the scene faster than our brains can handle. It is in the darkroom, (or now computer) that the art work happens. We must use our brains to get the image the way we saw it when we first clicked the shutter.
Roberta McGrath
Roberta McGrath really gets to the point about nudes and sexuality in this essay. Who is she to say that men need to see a nude woman to be satisfied? I can look at a photograph of a nude woman and look at it as a piece of art, not an erotic photograph. What makes me (as a man) satisfied, is seeing my friends and family succeed in life, overcoming obstacles they may face.
I don't think Edward Weston photographed nude women to get a "thrill". He saw them as canvases and fine pieces of art that God created. If women don't like the fact that there are nude photographers out there, then don't pose nude. You don't have to look at a piece of art just because it's there, walk past it.
Jan Avgikos
Comparing Weston to Cindy Sherman, I would say that it is Cindy Sherman is the maker of porn images. Although they may be dummies. It is the way she poses them and the props she uses. The language in this essay really gets that message across. Jan uses very strong language and I was taken aback by the descriptions of some of the work.
Even though photography has been male dominated, there are more and more women photographers and we can't criticize men if they want to shoot nudes, because women are also shooting the same genre. As a society, we need to look at the artist as individuals and not as a whole. We are trained to think that a male produced such images, because of history, but this is not the case anymore.
Weston- Although I have my own personal reservations about Weston and his work, I enjoyed readings his points on view on photography as an art form. Photography began as a science, not as an art form, and was used more as a tool rather than something that would be considered in the same relm of paintings or sculpture. This is drastically different from the world we live in today as photographers. We as image makers are under tremendous pressures. As time progresses we are also seeing the decline of science within the photographic arts (the darkroom etc) which has left me thinking about what photography may develop into 100 years from now. Perhaps like previous artists (scientists/photographers) we cannot even imagine.
ReplyDeleteAvgikos- This article had me posing the question (which I would like to discuss in class) how/what do we define pornography? Is pornography different than nude art/photography? I have to comment on what Kevin previously stated about men vs. women shooting this genre. I think all photographers are criticized in this genre, not just men. We may question why men chose to shoot this vs. why women do, but why are we as a society preconditioned to believe that the intent of most male photographers is perverted in nature? Cindy Sherman may be commenting on this topic through her work, she is one of the most popular and well respected female photographers of our time, and I think it is worth while to take a closer look at her intent rather than subject matter.
McGrath- I would like to further discuss in class the meaning of satisfaction, why women are not also the focus of this essay, also what was the real intent of Ed Weston on his emulations of the female body?
Starting with Avgikos, first of all was a difficult to easily read. What I got from it was that we basically see pornographic images in a male perspective, which I would agree, and Avgikos talks about Sherman's work of her mannequins that the fact a women took these photographs it expresses an impressive and interesting point of view of sexuality. This brings up topics of pornography and photography. What is the difference if there even is one? The topics in McGrath's paper fall into that perspective of seeing pornography in the male perspective but it takes it a step further by stating that all of photography is male. And all of photography is sexually charged no matter what it is. I do not necessarily agree with this position but I enjoyed that perspective of the fact that photography is a male discourse, it's interesting.
ReplyDelete1. Are Cindy Sherman's photographs of Mannequins pornography?
I would say yes based on the social structure of what we would consider pornography. You can look at it in two ways; these photographs are represented to be explicit, just like a photograph of actual explicit actions going on, the photographing of that is the artists representation, and so if the photographs have that perspective then there could be no difference between a plastic human resembling sex and a real person. On the other hand all photography is representation therefore there is no such thing as pornography, but just a social taboo we put on something that exploits a basic human emotion.
2. is there a difference between pornography and photography?
Socially there is a difference because we make that distinction. But we can say that there really can be no difference because all photography is a representation, so therefore pornography is just a representation. The intent is what could make something "pornographic" but if like what McGrath explains about Weston that all photography is based on sexuality then our social construct of beauty is all "pornographic"
3. Are all photographs in a males perspective?
I would ssay this is hard to tell, being that I am a male, but I can definitely state that photographs considered to be "pornographic are most definitely a males perspective. But I dont think all of photography can lean in that direction. Our sight and conception of this world is not all based on sexual experience and therefore not all photographs can be male dominant.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MmRVVROy-Jo/Sw5uhuWFLXI/AAAAAAAAI0g/sdm4ZhddvrE/s1600/cindy+sherman5.jpg
http://www.sfmoma.org/images/artwork/medium/99.137.jpg
http://www.harpreetkhara.com/wp-content/uploads/Legs_Stephan-Brigidi_HarryCallahan.jpg