http://www.hawaiipictures.com/pictures/wallpapers/rainbows1-1.jpg
Or, because that doesn't work:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hawaiipictures.com/pictures/kauai/rainbows1-1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://thebarefootlibrarian.blogspot.com/2008/03/many-colors-of-greater-phx-digital.html&usg=__1IzlYGalLtMNJKG-J0VsM3z9ihM=&h=1149&w=1600&sz=335&hl=en&start=2&um=1&tbnid=Of9XJbB7NV3q_M:&tbnh=108&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drainbows%26ndsp%3D18%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN
Back when I used to actually draw things (around the age of 5), my favorite subject was rainbows. I was weird and critical about them having the colors be in the right order (my kindergarten buddies got an earful if they ever drew purple next to yellow). I was thrilled when I found out that there was actually a scientific explanation for why rainbow colors were always in the same order. They’re spread out according to the lengths of the wavelengths. Red has the longest wavelength, purple has the shortest (The five-year-old in my is saying “I told you so”). Also, I mean, come on, that order is totally the prettiest.
Anyways, I’ve always had a weakness for rainbow pictures, and this one is particularly awesome. That’s definitely a double rainbow in the top left of the picture. (I know, right? Rare!) The picture even depicts the conditions that make rainbows possible. You can see the receding rainclouds, and almost feel the sun finally beginning to come out. Yes, there’s got to be tons of tiny little water drops refracting the white light and splitting it up into a beautiful depiction of its constituent parts.
Also, the mountains and beach have this perfect mix of calming beauty and hinted adventure. (Anyone want to try to scale those steep cliffs? Let’s go! If we fall, whatever, they look velvety soft. It’s cool, nobody dies in rainbow beach land). There are even footprints in the sand that give this feeling of impending journey that might lead beneath the rainbow, or into the mountains, or just down the beach forever. Despite the hint that we might actually walk under the rainbow, in real life the rainbow would just keep receding into the distance, or maybe disappear. Rainbows in general are this fleeting beauty that we can only ever view from a distance. The photographs make the rainbow more tangible, and the footprints add this hope of attaining the unattainable
I couldn’t find the name of the photographer, but this is actually a wall paper for your computer (Yea, I downloaded it). It’s probably supposed to promote tourism to Hawaii. Which is working. I’d be down for visiting that landscape. So, to summarize, this picture called to me in particular because it’s got this exotic draw, and it features a particularly good image of rainbow. And the little girl in my is kind of jumping up and down right now for a vacation to Hawaii and singing to theme song to “Rainbow Bright.”
Thursday, December 4, 2008
ok, i dont know why, maybe because i am in anatomy class and we're touching cadavers...or maybe its because im doing my paper on art in anatomy, either way, its safe to say that dead bodies have been a part of my life recently and ive developed a little bit of an interest in them.the photos of this guy, joel peter witkin are not for the faint of heart, the squeemish. that part of me was totally killed off a few months ago. the photos, for me, touch on a part of childhood actually -those boyhood fantasies, conjuring up the most greusome or gory image i could think of. did anyone else go through that period...around 3 or 4th grade?
well anyways, thats what i see come to life, so to speak, with these photos. i want to include a link of them on youtube, but im worried some people might freak out (like some of the asian girls in the computer room at ihouse did when they saw what i was looking at) if it pops up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA9b1Uuohl0&feature=PlayList&p=2806D065D860BF8C&index=0
So back to the childhood thing...yea. I read a little about him, and i found one quote which was nice, something about being able to find beauty in everything. I would extend that further, by implication, by wondering if beauty necessarily has elements of pleasure in it - meaning if it pleases us, then its beautiful. Can something be beautiful without being pleasing. Even further, can something be beautiful and repulsive at the same time? I dont mean that it is repulsively beautiful, but can we accept that it is repulsive, and then forget it in place of accepting it as purely beautiful.
The Future Hotel Room by LAVA is a research collaboration that explores the future of relationships between humans and space. Integration of emergent technologies include specific user control of lights and climate.
I found this project interesting because it is one of the more successful attempts at creating a new formal environment through digital design mediums that is able to serve the function of bedroom. While it may be still at the level of a schematic proposal, spaces like these are being increasingly developed and realized. The implications of spaces with continuous surfaces offers both advantages and disadvantages, but gives a glimpse into how we might inhabit space several years from now.
Doll Face
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl6hNj1uOkY
This short animated clip is "Doll Face", where a robot with a doll's face is shown a series of idealized human faces on a television, which the robot tries to imitate. I have the impression this is a rather well-known clip, so it's likely lots of the class already knows about it. It is a statement about the unrealistic ideals society instills upon people, especially those of the images of women, who are often unrealistically beautiful.
As an possible example of art, there is aesthetic value in the high-quality animation that can be seen in the clip. However, I would classify it as more of a Duchamp-type work, in that the meaning of it is more important than what it actually appears as.
This short animated clip is "Doll Face", where a robot with a doll's face is shown a series of idealized human faces on a television, which the robot tries to imitate. I have the impression this is a rather well-known clip, so it's likely lots of the class already knows about it. It is a statement about the unrealistic ideals society instills upon people, especially those of the images of women, who are often unrealistically beautiful.
As an possible example of art, there is aesthetic value in the high-quality animation that can be seen in the clip. However, I would classify it as more of a Duchamp-type work, in that the meaning of it is more important than what it actually appears as.
Mitch Clem is my favorite webcomic artist/writer. I don't know if webcomics are typically considered Art, but most webcomic artists generally experiment with other art forms, digital and traditional. A webcomic almost documents the entire development of an artist's style, sometimes for over 10 years of drawing comics. I love Mitch Clem's style, the thick black outlines, the character's expressions, etc, but it's also his writing that makes his comics great, with his character development and sense of humor.
The Afghan Girl
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/100best/storyA_story.html
I searched National Geographic website for this picture because I saw this picture in a magazine a while ago and I was really drawn to it. Something about the girl's piercing green eyes really seemed to illustrate the common saying that eyes are the windows to a person's soul. Her eyes, which are bright, almost unnaturally green, are not only beautiful, but seem to tell some sort of a story. Along with the pair of emerald eyes, her facial expression, grimy face and vividly colored yet tattered rust-orange garment suggest some sort of a struggle. Although she is clearly a young girl, she looks too tired and aged because this photograph tells us that she has suffered through so much already in her life. It turns out that she is an Afghan refugee. There is no caption needed; the picture alone is more than enough to tell us her story. There is nothing fancy or extraordinary about the picture (after all, it's just a shot of a young girl's face), but there is something so beautiful and haunting about her that it makes me feel drawn in.
I searched National Geographic website for this picture because I saw this picture in a magazine a while ago and I was really drawn to it. Something about the girl's piercing green eyes really seemed to illustrate the common saying that eyes are the windows to a person's soul. Her eyes, which are bright, almost unnaturally green, are not only beautiful, but seem to tell some sort of a story. Along with the pair of emerald eyes, her facial expression, grimy face and vividly colored yet tattered rust-orange garment suggest some sort of a struggle. Although she is clearly a young girl, she looks too tired and aged because this photograph tells us that she has suffered through so much already in her life. It turns out that she is an Afghan refugee. There is no caption needed; the picture alone is more than enough to tell us her story. There is nothing fancy or extraordinary about the picture (after all, it's just a shot of a young girl's face), but there is something so beautiful and haunting about her that it makes me feel drawn in.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Theo Jansen's "Beach Beasts"
This picture is of one of Theo Jansen's "Beach Beasts", but this sculpture not only looks really interesting with its jungle of connecting tubes, it actually walks on its own, using only the wind. Watching these creatures slowly walk along the beach is like watching a skeleton of some never before seen creature come to life again. This is exactly what Theo Jansen is going for. Through his kinetic sculptures, he is seeking to create a new kind of nature. He uses ideas based on evolution to improve his creatures and eventually wants to put herds of them onto the beach to let them live their own lives. But when asked whether what he is doing is art or science he replies that they are all the same, he sees no difference (Jansen studied physics at school, but also became a painter).What I find most interesting about Jansen's art is the way it seems to create life, in a sense. Many artworks can be thought of as "creating life" in a sense because they might create new worlds and emotions on a canvas that don't exist in the real world, or at least not at the moment. But I think Jansen takes this concept even further, his creatures not only move but are self-propelled using only energy from nature, just like real lifeforms do. Jansen's art not only makes us question the line between art and science, but also between art and nature.
Morris Louis
http://library.artstor.org/library/welcome.html#3|search|1|morris20louis20saf20gimel|Multiple20Collection20Search|||type3D3126kw3Dmorris20louis20saf20gimel26id3Dall26name3D
I chose Morris Louis' "Saf Gimmel", I really like this painting mostly because it reminds me of the Northern Lights. I love the color and the atmospheric quality. The way the colors blend and merge make the image appear to morph, as if the entire painting is slipping down the canvas. I found this browsing through the Guggenheim collection, and it just caught my eye, not because of any conceptual or deep intellectual interest, but purely because it was purely fun to look at. Sometimes I really like looking at art I know nothing about because you get to form your own narrative, or even no narrative at all, other than your immediate reaction to its the visual quality. It does not spark any particular emotion or revelation about the world, but captures my attention for a purely visual, aesthetic reason.
I chose Morris Louis' "Saf Gimmel", I really like this painting mostly because it reminds me of the Northern Lights. I love the color and the atmospheric quality. The way the colors blend and merge make the image appear to morph, as if the entire painting is slipping down the canvas. I found this browsing through the Guggenheim collection, and it just caught my eye, not because of any conceptual or deep intellectual interest, but purely because it was purely fun to look at. Sometimes I really like looking at art I know nothing about because you get to form your own narrative, or even no narrative at all, other than your immediate reaction to its the visual quality. It does not spark any particular emotion or revelation about the world, but captures my attention for a purely visual, aesthetic reason.
Who owns what on television?
Link to blog and rest of images:
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-television/
What comes to mind when you read the text? What comes to mind when you view these images? What are the implications of having two different sources of information?
It's interesting that one can essentially glean the same information in the images as in the text. The colorful collage of small logos are situated next to the a similarly-sized logo of the company that owns them. The composite of artistic choices made in these images make us question what we would not question if we only read the text. Does this mean images have the power to elicit more than just 2-dimensional thinking?
We can use the images as metaphors for U.S. society. The 6 large companies represent the dominant and governing institutions (government, business, media, corporation, education, etc) and the channels represent the diverse inhabitants (diversity in this case includes identities relating to race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, immigration status, and sexuality among others) Oftentimes the common narrative of diversity in this country, that of multiculturalism, serves to tokenize the diverse elements without meaningfully respecting difference in favor of assimilation. By evading the dimension of difference, this discourse also evades the core issues ailing society.
In the images we see that there are a variety of channels that cater to many interests. However what are the implications for the channels' autonomy and creativity having only 6 large channels? Or am I overthinking this?
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/07/07/who-owns-what-on-television/
What comes to mind when you read the text? What comes to mind when you view these images? What are the implications of having two different sources of information?
It's interesting that one can essentially glean the same information in the images as in the text. The colorful collage of small logos are situated next to the a similarly-sized logo of the company that owns them. The composite of artistic choices made in these images make us question what we would not question if we only read the text. Does this mean images have the power to elicit more than just 2-dimensional thinking?
We can use the images as metaphors for U.S. society. The 6 large companies represent the dominant and governing institutions (government, business, media, corporation, education, etc) and the channels represent the diverse inhabitants (diversity in this case includes identities relating to race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, immigration status, and sexuality among others) Oftentimes the common narrative of diversity in this country, that of multiculturalism, serves to tokenize the diverse elements without meaningfully respecting difference in favor of assimilation. By evading the dimension of difference, this discourse also evades the core issues ailing society.
In the images we see that there are a variety of channels that cater to many interests. However what are the implications for the channels' autonomy and creativity having only 6 large channels? Or am I overthinking this?
Woman
While I was skimming through the pictures that are on the SFMOMA website, this one stood out to me. Although I am not clear about the “right” meaning of this picture, it appealed to me because of the way it has represented woman and desire in such a raw manner. This representation of woman deviates from the ones that are more known, in which the breast of the women are exaggerated and they are being depicted as demons with huge eyes and teeth. The aggression that is characteristic of De Kooning’s pictures of women is absent in this picture. Although this is still a distorted representation of woman, the woman in this picture seems tormented, with her arms around her knees, hiding away from the world. Yet, at the same time, she stares out at us with a look on her face that suggests that she knows something we do not. It is smug and coy at the same time. I think this epitomizes the perception of woman as desired by man. To me, the development of the representation of woman shows how De Kooning grows to understand this better. It shows how the conflicting images of helplessness and aggression create a desirable image of a woman. Being enigmatic makes it desirable. At the same time, the strokes in this painting reinforce that. This image does not have a defined structure, making it seem unclear. It is almost as if it is “coming through in waves”. We are almost able to grasp it, but it eludes us with its unclear structure. I like how this image makes viewer feel like it is almost understandable but it is not. The shape seems to be almost defined but it is not. This relationship that the viewer establishes with the images parallels the sexual desire that men have for women that I believe De Kooning was trying to represent.
Banksy
"La Petite Danseuse de Quatorze Ans" ("Little Dancer of Fourteen Years")
I chose an artwork that I have always liked: Edgar Degas’s sculpture "La Petite Danseuse de Quatorze Ans" ("Little Dancer of Fourteen Years"), c. 1881 because I think that it is beautiful work. I saw a photo of this artwork when I was young and I have remembered it since. I had never thought about why I like Degas’s sculpture but having taken this course I tried to look at why I like this work.
I personally like sculptures because the show the mark of the artist, you can imagine that this artist actually put their hands on this piece years ago. This of course reflects that artists and artistic talent are still very valued and admired. Degas sculpture of the dancer is also very unique in that it is a bronze sculpture but also has a cotton skirt and a hair ribbon. This seems like an old combination since bronze this thought to be very strong and unbreakable, but the use of the fabric softens the sculpture. This combination brings the strength and elegance that a dancer must contain when they perform. I also like that the pose of the dancer incorporates the strength and posture that a dancer holds, yet doesn’t show any movement that we are used to seeing in a dancer on stage. The dancer does not have the most beautiful face, according to some critics. But by not having the ideal face, I like it more since Degas was an impressionist painter he painted what he saw. It makes the art much more realistic, this of course touches on the subject that we are searching for the eternal truth and honesty in art.
Melanie Delon
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://img11.nnm.ru/imagez/gallery/6/e/5/6/f/6e56fe7f8990394c550d6ca308aa03c9_full.jpg&imgrefurl=http://int.nnm.ru/hudozhnica_melanie_delon_1&h=900&w=561&sz=149&tbnid=_jYdOWXPnNwJ::&tbnh=146&tbnw=91&prev=/images%3Fq%3DM%25C3%25A9lanie%2BDelon&usg=__z1vUaZaSiNXv_smqa5xaIM5ZeXw=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=5&ct=image&cd=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwcO2Ez0exo - Melanie Delon speed painting.
I really liked a lot of the works created by Melanie Delon. She's actually a digital painter, meaning that she creates her images through the use of computer programs. However, just because she uses technology, doesn't mean that her works don't show any skill or talent--its actually quite the contrary. Her paintings caught my eye because the look so realistic even though many of the subject matter derives from a fantasy world. That link to the video of her painting gives us an insight on the process it takes to create such an image--I thought it was really fascinating! It seems like she favors drawing females, one in particular (maybe herself?) in a somewhat eerie light; there seems to be a weird glow to each one of her paintings. All in all, Delon has an awesome imagination and great use of technique.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwcO2Ez0exo - Melanie Delon speed painting.
I really liked a lot of the works created by Melanie Delon. She's actually a digital painter, meaning that she creates her images through the use of computer programs. However, just because she uses technology, doesn't mean that her works don't show any skill or talent--its actually quite the contrary. Her paintings caught my eye because the look so realistic even though many of the subject matter derives from a fantasy world. That link to the video of her painting gives us an insight on the process it takes to create such an image--I thought it was really fascinating! It seems like she favors drawing females, one in particular (maybe herself?) in a somewhat eerie light; there seems to be a weird glow to each one of her paintings. All in all, Delon has an awesome imagination and great use of technique.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
rotating building in dubai is "awaiting approval"
http://uk.reuters.com/article/UKNews1/idUKN2435465820080624
watch the little video, its cool
watch the little video, its cool
Starry-Eyed
What is the significance of being able to translate an image into a collection of data? With the advent of digital photography, photographs can be turned into digital files. This can either be seen as a suggestion to rethink our view of the photographed world, or to point out the limitations of digital photography as compared to analog photography. Perhaps digital is inherently unreal, and does not correspond to actuality.
As digital photography is more and more replacing normal means of photography, what are the effects upon the integrity of photographs as evidence of reality? If reality can be represented as a series of pixels, then reality can feasibly be manipulated by hand. Photography becomes no more representative of reality than more traditional forms of art.
As digital photography is more and more replacing normal means of photography, what are the effects upon the integrity of photographs as evidence of reality? If reality can be represented as a series of pixels, then reality can feasibly be manipulated by hand. Photography becomes no more representative of reality than more traditional forms of art.
1. Mitchell mentions how visual processing helps doctors to “see” things like different layers of muscle, or different parts of the brain. In some cases, these pictures stand in for something the doctor might actually see. For instance, some pictures in books depict muscles on the human body. Perhaps if the doctor were able to cut into a cadaver, he could actually look at the muscles in an arm. The picture just lets the doctor see these muscles without having to harm his patient. In other cases, the pictures do not correspond to anything the naked eye can sense. For instance, in colored representation of brain synapses firing. If the doctor were to actually cut into his patient’s brain and look at it, he would not see areas with lots of brain activity glowing red or orange. This orange or red coloring represents data that has nothing to do with what the naked eye can see. In this way, digital imaging can radically depart from photography’s limitations of image creation. Does this make digital imaging a more complete representation of reality? Or instead is digital imaging fundamentally a product of fabrication?
Digital imaging is definitely more flexible in the kind of data it can represent. This could lead one to conclude that digital imaging is a more complete representation of reality or truth. Digital imaging can represent all kinds of data that corresponds directly with reality, whereas photography can only represent the effect of visible light. Digital images aren’t forced to correspond to images produced from the effects of visible light. In fact, digital images aren’t forced to correspond to any kind of image that actually exists and can be seen by the eye. This doesn’t, however, rule out the possibility that digital images correspond to data that is securely grounded in fact. Maybe a digital image represents the probability density of an electron orbital in some molecule. This probability density can’t be “seen,” but it does exist, and the data can be represented in a visual image. This image still very closely corresponds to reality, and thus shows the potential for digital imaging to be complete representation of reality.
On the other hand, digital imaging is a manipulation of data to serve some purpose. Even if the data is real, we alter it so that it can be represented in a visual form that is easy to understand and interpret. This could arguably indicate the fabrication that must occur for a digital image to be useful. Even if a digital representation in some cases has to do with data that is grounded in “Truth,” in other cases digital imaging can depict an entirely imagined (or fabricated) picture. Digital imaging can be used, or manipulated, to represent reality, and can also be manipulated to fabricate pictures. Photography doesn’t have this freedom. The process is consistent, and always represents the effects of light in a way that is grounded in reality. In this sense, digital imaging is more grounded in fabrication and artistic invention than photography.
2. Mitchell states that, “the photograph demonstrated that for many artists truth had really been another word for convention.” It is easy to see how painting could have led artists to mix these two things up (such as conventional two-dimensional depictions of the cube). How has photography led artists to a more clear distinction between truth and convention? Or, is photography just as susceptible to confusing convention with truth?
Digital imaging is definitely more flexible in the kind of data it can represent. This could lead one to conclude that digital imaging is a more complete representation of reality or truth. Digital imaging can represent all kinds of data that corresponds directly with reality, whereas photography can only represent the effect of visible light. Digital images aren’t forced to correspond to images produced from the effects of visible light. In fact, digital images aren’t forced to correspond to any kind of image that actually exists and can be seen by the eye. This doesn’t, however, rule out the possibility that digital images correspond to data that is securely grounded in fact. Maybe a digital image represents the probability density of an electron orbital in some molecule. This probability density can’t be “seen,” but it does exist, and the data can be represented in a visual image. This image still very closely corresponds to reality, and thus shows the potential for digital imaging to be complete representation of reality.
On the other hand, digital imaging is a manipulation of data to serve some purpose. Even if the data is real, we alter it so that it can be represented in a visual form that is easy to understand and interpret. This could arguably indicate the fabrication that must occur for a digital image to be useful. Even if a digital representation in some cases has to do with data that is grounded in “Truth,” in other cases digital imaging can depict an entirely imagined (or fabricated) picture. Digital imaging can be used, or manipulated, to represent reality, and can also be manipulated to fabricate pictures. Photography doesn’t have this freedom. The process is consistent, and always represents the effects of light in a way that is grounded in reality. In this sense, digital imaging is more grounded in fabrication and artistic invention than photography.
2. Mitchell states that, “the photograph demonstrated that for many artists truth had really been another word for convention.” It is easy to see how painting could have led artists to mix these two things up (such as conventional two-dimensional depictions of the cube). How has photography led artists to a more clear distinction between truth and convention? Or, is photography just as susceptible to confusing convention with truth?
The Reconfigured Eye
With the emergence of the digital image, many issues including moral and legal ones arose. In analyzing this phenomenon, it is imperative to first analyze the difference between photography and the digital image. While photography has prided itself on immediacy between the physical and the image captured, the digital image reverses this by enabling blatant manipulation of the image. With the lack of an artist’s hand in photography, it has been acknowledged as the most objective evidence of a physical reality. The creator of a digital image exploits this very quality of photography, and insidiously creates images to suit his own motives. One very interesting point that is being brought up is the power that these artists now possess. Digital images no longer require physical objects; digital objects can interact with each other to create new digital images. Thus, a whole new digital world can be created independent of a physical reality. Therefore, artists can now create a world based solely on their intentions and influence public opinion through the introduction of these images. These images will be perceived as legitimate, and this reveals how the emergence of such technology can be detrimental to the political climate of our society. While photography is been viewed as the most objective form of evidence, techniques such as framing and exposure has already enabled photographers to add a rhetorical element to their images. Works such as that of Jacob Riis prove that photography has the power to persuade. As such, the danger of the emergence of the digital image is undeniable. Seemingly innocuous, this innovation could have had serious political consequences if not monitored closely.
The Discrete Image
As there are only 3 pages of this article in my reader, I am unable to give a good analysis of this reading. However, upon reading the first 3 pages, one statement that caught my attention was “the mental image is always the return of some image-object, its remanence”. This gives the image a ghostly quality, and brings to our attention the relationship between the metaphysical and the conceptual. What strikes me most about this is that it reveals the interdependence between the two. The existence of a reality outside our imagination has often been denied; some believe that perceptions are the only thing we can be certain of. Yet, this statement questions the birth of a mental image. Where does the mental image originate from, if not from the visual experience of a physical object. This paradox reveals that we are perhaps too concerned with the separation of the material from the immaterial. They are intertwined, and are evidently building upon each other as seen from the statement above.
With the emergence of the digital image, many issues including moral and legal ones arose. In analyzing this phenomenon, it is imperative to first analyze the difference between photography and the digital image. While photography has prided itself on immediacy between the physical and the image captured, the digital image reverses this by enabling blatant manipulation of the image. With the lack of an artist’s hand in photography, it has been acknowledged as the most objective evidence of a physical reality. The creator of a digital image exploits this very quality of photography, and insidiously creates images to suit his own motives. One very interesting point that is being brought up is the power that these artists now possess. Digital images no longer require physical objects; digital objects can interact with each other to create new digital images. Thus, a whole new digital world can be created independent of a physical reality. Therefore, artists can now create a world based solely on their intentions and influence public opinion through the introduction of these images. These images will be perceived as legitimate, and this reveals how the emergence of such technology can be detrimental to the political climate of our society. While photography is been viewed as the most objective form of evidence, techniques such as framing and exposure has already enabled photographers to add a rhetorical element to their images. Works such as that of Jacob Riis prove that photography has the power to persuade. As such, the danger of the emergence of the digital image is undeniable. Seemingly innocuous, this innovation could have had serious political consequences if not monitored closely.
The Discrete Image
As there are only 3 pages of this article in my reader, I am unable to give a good analysis of this reading. However, upon reading the first 3 pages, one statement that caught my attention was “the mental image is always the return of some image-object, its remanence”. This gives the image a ghostly quality, and brings to our attention the relationship between the metaphysical and the conceptual. What strikes me most about this is that it reveals the interdependence between the two. The existence of a reality outside our imagination has often been denied; some believe that perceptions are the only thing we can be certain of. Yet, this statement questions the birth of a mental image. Where does the mental image originate from, if not from the visual experience of a physical object. This paradox reveals that we are perhaps too concerned with the separation of the material from the immaterial. They are intertwined, and are evidently building upon each other as seen from the statement above.
Digital Images
1. In Mitchell’s The Reconfigured Eye, he includes a quote by Aaron Scharf, “The meaning of the term ‘truth to nature’ lost its force: what was true could not always be seen, and what was see was not always true,” and comments, “Once again the photograph demonstrated that for many artists truth had really been another word for convention.” What is one example of an alternative “truth” that could be portrayed in digital photography, but does not fit with convention?
Recently, a photo released by the US Army of the highest-ranking female military officer (who was recently promoted to four-star general) sparked a dispute between the Associated Press and the Pentagon. The problem was that the picture released showed the general in front of an American flag, though in reality the original background was a bland bookcase. Adding and subtracting content from images is strictly against AP policy, and after unknowingly printing a doctored photo, the AP issued a “Photo Elimination” notice that contained the image with a huge “No” symbol over it. This example brings up numerous problems mentioned in the quotes above. When defining “truth to nature,” the convention is to define it in terms of physical and temporal reality, and the AP clearly abides by this convention. Since the general was not physically present in front of the flag, the image is therefore a lie. However, what if “truth to nature” was instead defined in a more metaphorical way to describe possibly, the “nature” of the situation, or her “personal nature.” With this definition the new photo with the American flag would be considered more truthful because it more accurately describes the situation’s significance to our country and shows her patriotism. The notion of “truth” has been contested throughout human history, and though it is unlikely to ever be resolved, digital images at least challenge the conventional ideas of truth and nature that our society has grown accustomed to.
2. Mitchell argues, “We might best regard digital images… as fragments of information that circulate in the high-speed networks now ringing the globe that can be received.” In what ways does using the term “information” accurately reflect the nature of these images and in what ways does this term seem to limit the meaning potential of digital images?
Recently, a photo released by the US Army of the highest-ranking female military officer (who was recently promoted to four-star general) sparked a dispute between the Associated Press and the Pentagon. The problem was that the picture released showed the general in front of an American flag, though in reality the original background was a bland bookcase. Adding and subtracting content from images is strictly against AP policy, and after unknowingly printing a doctored photo, the AP issued a “Photo Elimination” notice that contained the image with a huge “No” symbol over it. This example brings up numerous problems mentioned in the quotes above. When defining “truth to nature,” the convention is to define it in terms of physical and temporal reality, and the AP clearly abides by this convention. Since the general was not physically present in front of the flag, the image is therefore a lie. However, what if “truth to nature” was instead defined in a more metaphorical way to describe possibly, the “nature” of the situation, or her “personal nature.” With this definition the new photo with the American flag would be considered more truthful because it more accurately describes the situation’s significance to our country and shows her patriotism. The notion of “truth” has been contested throughout human history, and though it is unlikely to ever be resolved, digital images at least challenge the conventional ideas of truth and nature that our society has grown accustomed to.
2. Mitchell argues, “We might best regard digital images… as fragments of information that circulate in the high-speed networks now ringing the globe that can be received.” In what ways does using the term “information” accurately reflect the nature of these images and in what ways does this term seem to limit the meaning potential of digital images?
How significant is the difference between analog and digital images? I can't even tell the difference in playback from a record and an mp3, and though the mechanism is completely different, an analog clock and a digital clock both just tell the time. The infinite range of values for the second hand doesn't make a difference when you need to know if you're late. Digital watches with milliseconds provide far more detail about the time than is generally useful. Similarly, in a digital image, if the resolution is high enough, our eyes will just interpret the square points as smooth curves.
Is the problem of falsifying evidence unique to digital images? It seems like the real problem is people telling lies, and people believing lies, which are not new phenomena, and can be facilitated by any medium if the liar is creative enough (or the people are gullible enough.) Sasquatch footage doesn't need to be digitally altered if you've got a big enough guy and a gorilla suit. If people were at all familiar with photoshop it should be obvious that digital photographs can easily be altered and distorted. It seems to go without saying that nearly every photograph that we see in everyday media is altered in someway, when an unaltered magazine cover stirs "controversy". You could choose to believe NASA photographs represent reality because you trust NASA as a scientific authority, which would be different than believing photos just because they are photos.
Is the problem of falsifying evidence unique to digital images? It seems like the real problem is people telling lies, and people believing lies, which are not new phenomena, and can be facilitated by any medium if the liar is creative enough (or the people are gullible enough.) Sasquatch footage doesn't need to be digitally altered if you've got a big enough guy and a gorilla suit. If people were at all familiar with photoshop it should be obvious that digital photographs can easily be altered and distorted. It seems to go without saying that nearly every photograph that we see in everyday media is altered in someway, when an unaltered magazine cover stirs "controversy". You could choose to believe NASA photographs represent reality because you trust NASA as a scientific authority, which would be different than believing photos just because they are photos.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Digital Art
1. Does digital photography encourage hyperreality? Where is the fine line between "enhanced" and "fake?"
2. Mitchell states that "...since captured, 'painted' and synthesized pixel value can be combined seamlessly, the digital image blurs the customary distinctions between painting and photography and between mechanical and handmade pictures." (470) So does this make digital art more "artistic" by pulling it away from the objectivity and the dryness of photography? Is digital art a bridge between the old and the new (painting and photography) or is this a completely new development in visual art?
I think that digital art both adds and diminishes artistic qualities . It adds artistic qualities for the same reason that Mitchell states; people can alter and reproduce it to display their personality, a touch of human-ness. It diminishes artistic qualities in that it may take things too far and make it completely unreal and almost fake, taking it away from the "human-ness." Thus depending on the view, we can see it as a bridge or a completely new development. If seen as "artistic," it can be seen as the bridge between the completely humanly "painting" and the mechanical and objective "photography." If seen as "un-artistic," however, it can be seen as the outcome of advanced technological era of today, which makes it a completely new development in visual art.
2. Mitchell states that "...since captured, 'painted' and synthesized pixel value can be combined seamlessly, the digital image blurs the customary distinctions between painting and photography and between mechanical and handmade pictures." (470) So does this make digital art more "artistic" by pulling it away from the objectivity and the dryness of photography? Is digital art a bridge between the old and the new (painting and photography) or is this a completely new development in visual art?
I think that digital art both adds and diminishes artistic qualities . It adds artistic qualities for the same reason that Mitchell states; people can alter and reproduce it to display their personality, a touch of human-ness. It diminishes artistic qualities in that it may take things too far and make it completely unreal and almost fake, taking it away from the "human-ness." Thus depending on the view, we can see it as a bridge or a completely new development. If seen as "artistic," it can be seen as the bridge between the completely humanly "painting" and the mechanical and objective "photography." If seen as "un-artistic," however, it can be seen as the outcome of advanced technological era of today, which makes it a completely new development in visual art.
Reconfigured Eye
Does digital photography hold any artistic appeal since it can be manipulated and altered beyond recognition from the initial image or reality? How has the advent of digital photography reinvented the definition and perception of photography?
While digital photography has erased the realistic aspect of photography with its manipulative characteristics, it still retains some artistic appeal. There has to be some level of artistic ability going into the alteration of the image. Digital photography is discrete compared to the analog quality of traditional photography. This characteristic results in an infinite replicability, unlike painting and its photographic counterparts. An interesting sidenote revolves around how paintings are transformed into digital images. Do these digital images retain the same artistic value and appeal as the original or is something lost in the translation?
In what other areas (besides art) did digital photography have an impact? Was this impact as revolutionary as that on the artistic world?
Questions
Does it make sense to state that a simple photograph represents reality while a painting represents the ideal in art? Or is it that in both techniques, the image is a embodiment of the ideals of the artist/photographer as well as the viewer?
Is seeing enough to believe when it comes to digital photography?
Before reading this text, I really knew nothing about photography and digital imaging. It was surprising to find out that a good percentage of the pictures published in our society are digitally altered with little trouble at all. With access to a camera and a computer, one can easily modify a photograph and use it for evidence in places like the court room. Like many, if I were chosen to sit as a juror of that case and was presented a picture of the accused doing exactly what he is being tried for, I would have without a doubt assumed he was guilty just by the photo or video alone. However, according to this reading, I would have been the victim to the deception of digital imaging. Therefore, seeing something (especially in a photograph) does not automatically give it truth and credibility. Sometimes, photography is just as true as the image created by paint on a canvas.
The Reconfigured Eye
When digital images are enhanced, like in the case of NASA scientists using “image-processing techniques to remove imperfections from images of the lunar surface” (Mitchell 11)do the changes in the imperfections out way the possible negative outcomes? Of course there are negative social consequences, such as the public losing faith and reliability in NASA, but do the changes of the image make it more or less meaningful? Do changes in images create a new perception of the subject or does it speak more about the photographer?
The New York Times stated that photographers, editors and publishers would have to stay away from creating false images to make a story because of the loss of creditability. Which I believe is at stake when images are digitally altered. Digital images have created two sides: one is the artistic and the other is journalistic. Images that are used for artistic purposes seem okay to be altered in order for the artist to express themselves, but when images are used in the media there is backlash to when images are changed. People state that they want the truth, yet often images that are altered can create a larger buzz and reaction. Altered images can be much more interesting than the truth, but I do not know if it makes it more or less meaningful. By talking about certain images make them more important? The photographer has a large role in the choices in an image, but photographers are creating an image that the public wants to see or will want to see. I think that when we focus on certain images that it does tell more about the public and its fascination.
Digital photography is not always a form of producing art, but can be used to inform. Images can have a powerful effect on the public; the photographer is now questioned. Is it reasonable to question the ethics of photographers? Does the photographer carry some sort of ethical obligation? Or is it the photographer’s right to just make an image and call it art?
The Reconfigured Eye
One thing I found to be very interesting in William Mitchell's discussion of digital photography, is this concept of "computational ready-mades". One key difference between digital photography and photography is digital version's ability to be seamlessly manipulated. Digital photography leaves no distinct marker of being "part scanned photograph, part computer synthesized", and hence has a certain ambiguity of originality. It has the ability to be completely ready-made and yet reconfigured such that it is completely original at the same time. Is this "ready-made" ambiguity a telling feature of modern art? Duchamp's art was also both ready made and original, in that they were already constructed objects that were appropriated a new meaning. Andy Warhol and many other modern artists created collages and used ready-made items to create new, original works. If ready-made art, such as conceptual art and digital photography, is the art of the modern age then does that make analog photography, like painting, dead. Is its inability to be reconfigured a trait of the past?
Also in Mitchell’s discussion, the author describes digital photography’s ability to be constantly fixed, retouched, and enhanced. Does this create a representation of the world that will always be more perfect than it actually is? Does this create a polarized understanding of reality, divided between a world that we see in visual representations such as magazines and newspapers, and a world that we experience in our day-to-day lives?
Also in Mitchell’s discussion, the author describes digital photography’s ability to be constantly fixed, retouched, and enhanced. Does this create a representation of the world that will always be more perfect than it actually is? Does this create a polarized understanding of reality, divided between a world that we see in visual representations such as magazines and newspapers, and a world that we experience in our day-to-day lives?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)