Gatsby in the Age of One Percent @CAG

Students writing their final papers on the Benton exhibition photos my find this contemporary exhibition take on Gatsby useful--plus, some of the photos included may furnish some with their concluding contemporary photograph. 

http://www.courant.com/entertainment/arts/hc-artweek-0328-20130325,0,3471015.story

The Subject as Object

Thus far, we have seen many photographs in which the main subject is the human body. I found it very interesting that the fascination with the body can be directly linked to progressing technology, even when technology is absent from the photograph itself. On page 170 of the reading, Fran Herbello’s Untitled image depicts a man’s body as a kind of attire. This photograph is a prime example of the world’s attention towards technological development. Because developments in genetics and medicine were occurring during the time this photograph was taken, the representation of the body as clothing, sewn in with a tag, shows the interest in the alteration of the human body.

I find it very interesting that there seems to have been a major shift in appreciation of a radically transformed body in such a short amount of time. “In the early 1990s, many cultural theorists and writers viewed the prospect of a technologically altered ‘posthuman’ or cyborg body as exciting, even liberating. A decade later, as this seems an ever ore plausible reality, it was increasingly viewed in dystopian, rather than utopian terms.” Today, using the human body as the subject of a photograph is almost always linked to a rising social issue- whether it is politically implicated, in promotion of a product, or linked to a bodily crisis. Fran Herbello’s photograph proves this, as it elicits a cringe from the viewer rather than an interest or desire to see more. 

"Shock Photography", "From Realism to Virtual Reality"

Both of these articles address the idea of photographer's creating images that shock the viewer and get their attention in order to convey a message. In most cases, the message is about the devastations of war, or to show the power of the country or a single man such as Napoleon. Photography quickly became a popular form of advertising, especially during World War II when the United States army wanted the public to become aware of the rising benefits of technology, successions made by the army and of terror in the concentration camps and on the battlefields. The Civil War was another time when photographers were capturing images of men strewn out on the battlefield to emphasize to the public how horrible this war was and the devastation it was causing to the split country. In today's society I feel as though we are much more immune to horrific images shown in the media, since we are so used to their display of shocking photographs that get one's attention. Especially through the popularity of the internet, we are more frequently exposed to graphic images. I think a good example of this can be seen from horror movies. There are commercials on the television for scary movies that I sometimes have to look away from because I am so surprised by the terror I feel when watching them. I think it is much more acceptable to show devastating photographs than it was in the 20th century since violent video games have been invented and the internet has exploded. The article, "From Realism to Virtual Reality: Images of America's Wars" describes the freedom allowed by film directors to really exploit devastating images and try to shock the public in order to increase popularity.

FYI: Summer Diversity Internship

http://library.constantcontact.com/download/get/file/1107718355556-12/Wadsworth+Atheneum+Summer+Diversity+Internship+2013-General+Guidelines.pdf

From Realism to Virtual Reality

The progression of war photography is very interesting to read about. From the beginning war photography, like painting, was sometimes used for patriotism and propaganda, showing a general/soldier/country in a positive light. But as shown with the Vietnam war, photography can cause a significant negative impact on how the public perceives a war.It was the first war to be televised and showed the true horrors of war. The image of the NLF prisoner being killed with a revolver is credited as the most influential image to come out of the Vietnam war. The image has since become an anti-war icon. The photographers (Eddie Adams and NBC news) were however turned into villains for taking the images and letting them be on the front page of newspapers and magazines. Because of the general public's disapproval of the evidence of what was happening in Vietnam, the photographers were given the blame. As the piece states, this is a huge difference from early war photographers, such as civil war photographers, who were praised for showing the "truth" about war and death to the American people. "...photographers must be allowed to image for the public only what the military deems suitable," I find this quote to still hold a lot of truth today. Photos showing our military in a positive light are praised celebrated while any showing dark truths about what our government/military are doing are naturally condemned.

Realism to Virtual Reality

The article about war photography was interesting in how you can see the progression of photography in a different way and light. Beginning with civil war photography where the images were still and static. They had to take it after the battle due to the slow cameras. As a result images came back as gruesome and gory and a reality check for the Americans who saw their loved ones dead. This time it was portrayed as awful instead of meaningful and documentary-like. Also through reading this it made me think that their is another reason these photographs were so awful compared to other war photographs to come. Reason being that in the Civil War was Americans fighting against Americans. It was a battle between us essentially instead of other wars where the entire country rises up in patriotism to fight, the Civil War was split so basically fighting your brother. That does not take away from the fact that WWI and WWII photos were not as gruesome but also they were scene more as a victory and American pride. Moving onto film, there is something about war movies that the public loves. We like to see action and winning battles without being there. There is so much history connected with Wars that people find very intriguing. It almost is as if it were a replay but in the safety of your theater seat. War photography and images will always serve as a way of documenting the past.

Franklin - “From Realism to Virtual Reality: Images of America’s Wars”

In Franklin’s “From Realism to Virtual Reality: Images of America’s Wars” he explains the development of war technology and the development of the expression of war through art. Franklin notes, “prior to the Civil War, visual images of America’s wars were, almost without exception, expressions of romanticism and nationalism.” “Literature,” Franklin explains, “was the only art form capable of projecting that action of warfare as temporal flow and movements.” As photo technology grew, as did the ability of art to capture the reality of warfare. I find it interesting how Franklin explains the way in which the same industrial processes and scientific knowledge used to advance war technology, is the “new means of perceiving its devastation.” Furthermore, Franklin explains how “earlier visual arts were now radically threatened by images of warfare introduced by photography.”  It’s interesting that he refers to photography as a “threat,.” I feel a common idea about photography is it acts as some sort of challenge to the more traditional mediums such as painting. I find this interesting because, while it seems painting and photography are often compared, this is somewhat of an unfair comparison since the two mediums are completely different.  

Responsibility of the Photographer in Photojournalism

Starving Child - Kevin Carter
In the image in the link, there is the famous picture, Pulitzer Prize winning, 1994 documentation of the tragic Sudan Famine.
What I think is one of the most interesting facts about the image, was the flack that the photographer caught for being the one to stop and snap up this intense image.
The problems for viewers were stemmed from 2 things:
1. Did the boy die?
     This is part of the tension in the image. There is a VULTURE following him and he still had a MILE to go and he was already curled up in the FETAL position. Sooo, yeah, he probably died, but the fact that no one really knows for sure? Problem.
2. The fact that the photographer took the picture and left. Does that make him just as bad as the vulture? Just watching and waiting, not actually helping?
      Herein lies a problem that has afflicted photographers for some time. Ethics. What are the ethics behind all these different types of photography? War photography? Cultural Photography? Etc. And the problem is, no one knows until the rules have been broken and people think"uhmmm... that's a little too far...".
The combination of these two issues is one that can never be answered. But the umbrella question that stems, IS the photographer RESPONSIBLE for the EVENTS and ETHICS taking place in the image?

Photographers are people too.
They use the camera to deal with their problems, or just problems in general. Is it the responsibility to fix the problem? No, not necessarily. I'm sure philanthropy would say differently but that is not the topic at hand. The issue is that a picture is a puzzle piece. It is just one slice of this giant cake of life, that we can see and look at, analyze, savor, enjoy over and over. But no matter how many times we look at it or taste it, it doesn't and will never, tell us what the original cake looked or taste like, it's just a slice. And taking responsibility for that one slice, means taking on the entire cake.
Explanation...
If you are going to take a slice, you have make sure all the slices are taken too. No cake left behind.
One person cannot take on an entire cake. That is not the job of the photographer, and to take the responsibility of that one piece, is to, also, attempt to take the cake.
Where would the value of the piece go? If you could have the whole thing, this one piece right now wouldn't taste as good would it? Just like Lay's say, "betcha can't eat just one". That's the whole point. The reason why the images are powerful, as least partially, is because it is JUST ONE. Giving us all the other answers, yes the boy dies, would kind of ruin the magic. And it sounds awful, but that is just par for the course.
The ethics of the photojournalist will always be debated and trivial. But, pushing the boundaries is what makes great photography. And, it is moving and effecting. Kevin Carter committed suicide 3 months after this picture was taken. There is so much sadness in the world and he captured some of it. And he has to carry that with him. That's a lot to take on in that one slice of cake.
Sometimes the boundary of camera between the photographer and the subject is dissolved by the desire to connect to something, even subconsciously. But also, the desire to create great art. Even if it means pissing off a few people and breaking hearts.

Documentary and Photojournalism

     Documentary and photojournalism photography is depicted as telling the viewer who and what is happening at a particular point in time.  As a viewer, we want to know the accurate information that is being told through this picture.  However, depending on the photographer's personal point of view, the way we see the image may be altered.

"The simplest and most obvious test of authenticity is to ask whether what is in front of the lens to be photographed has been tampered with, setup, or altered-"

    Many techniques can be used to change our view of an image that may not be telling the whole story.  I was interested to know in the reading that 'authentic documentary' was implicated stating no cropping was allowed, and the whole image was to be recorded, and that using something so simple as a flash could alter an image and that natural should be used.

   The argument however over what is authentic and what is artistic still stands.  Is documentary work meant to be a self-expression and how the artist wants to depict an event, or should it be a natural and unbiased and just a clear-cut image?  This may always be an ongoing discussion because people, whether they document it to the world or not, will have an opinion on a subject.

Documentary and Photojournalism Wells pp 69-74

In reading Wells ‘Documentary and Authenticity’ I saw a strong connection between the authenticity of documentary imagery and reality television. The ‘difficulty of fidelity’ for photographers to capture images that reference the world is striking because of  our constant over exposure to images, and perhaps, a growing trend to question what images we see are real and what images are not. In 2010, Joaquin Phoenix and Casey Affleck created a Mockumentary titled “I’m Still Here,” that chronicled Joaquin Phoenix for roughly a years’ time, during which he claimed he was retiring from acting and becoming a rapper. The false claim was regarded by Phoenix and Affleck as a legitimate statement and Phoenix pursued the hip-hop career for much of the film. Affleck and Phoenix’s intentions in the Mockumentary were to see how many people would believe or not believe Phoenix’s new career aspirations, and they were surprised to find out how many people ‘bought’ the act. In a later interview with David Letterman, Phoenix revealed that he never expected so many people to believe his act, and that his and Affleck’s goal was to shed light on how fictional reality television is, and how a large percentage of people receive it as a true depiction or a mildly-staged portrayal of some people’s lives. The idea that so many people regard these TV shows to be real is disconcerting, because of technologies advancements that allow easy editing of digital imagery; this furthers Well’s notion that “one might imagine, any claim of documentary to be any more truthful to appearances than other forms of representation,” and that we have to be increasingly more selective in what he believe from seeing. 

Documentary and Photojournalism

I found this reading to be particularly interesting. In the "documentary and authenticity" section of the piece, I enjoyed the juxtaposition of several instances, many years apart, where photography was used to either lie or show a subject in a particular way that may not have been entirely accurate. As noted, photography was originally hailed for being a medium that could not lie and one that recorded facts. Even in its early history, however, it was being used to manipulate viewers. E. Appert montaged and retouched photographs he supposedly took of the rising of the Paris commune. Even though they were not very well done, the public still took them as the truth. Photography was not questioned because it was thought of as being unable to tell a lie. Now with all of the technological advances in photography it's much easier to manipulate an image. I have seen countless images in magazines of celebrities who were photoshopped into places they never were all for entertainment value and many people do not question it no matter how ridiculous the circumstances. But on the other hand, with he advances of photoshop many people have started to question the validity of everything in photography, constantly wondering if an image has been altered in some way. As the section points out, photographs have been manipulated since the early days of photography. It will be curious to see just how "authentic" documentary photography will stay with all these new advances.

Documentary & Photojournalism

In this case I found many connection to "now" and the "back-then". They're trying to define the line between documentary photography and photo journalism, which I believe we are still trying to do. As it says documentary photography is effective and purpose for a social change. Photo journalism is also trying to inform the public of social issues as well. But what is the difference? Can both be altered? Especially in todays world where everyone has a camera and photoshop and the ability to manipulate photographs. In the case with Bernard when he was charged as deceiving the public, the general public now-a-days would all be charged of this. So many photos are manipulated in todays magazines and online especially that its hard to tell the truth from not. So now there is an even more fine line between documentary photography and photo journalism because you can manipulate the photograph how you like without the viewer realizing and people trusting their eyes threw cameras more.

Wells: pp69-74

The part of this reading that struck me was the idea that especially earlier in its history, photography was scrutinized according to its ability to depict reality objectively. The augmentation of elements in within the frame was considered dishonest to the public on behalf of the photographer. 

I think that these are fundamentally unrealistic expectations within the bounds of photography. Cropping alone requires artistic judgement, especially with regards to composition. Even beyond composition, photography's ability to capture reality is limited to what is seen within the frame. Regardless of whether or not the composition has been changed by the photographer in any way, there are still elements that are outside the frame, which were consciously excluded. Therefore, can any photograph really objectively depict reality? I'm not sure! 

There is also the argument that even if the photographer has made changes to what they are photographing, it still at one point in time existed in reality as it is seen in the photograph. So the important thing to realize is that photography has to be analyzed objectively. Whether or not a photograph depicts reality as it naturally occurred or not does not really concern me, but rather the connotative truth that the photographer implies with the photograph.

Haley Taylor

Illuminations: Remembrance

When I think of family photography I think of those portraits that families get done at Wal*Mart for Christmas or for family portraits that will be displayed on a mantel. I can't remember the last time I saw a hard copy of a family photo album. Annette Kuhn did a beautiful job of explaining how photographs do more than just document a moment; they document entire stories, or days through memories. I think we all unknowingly do this when we take pictures of our family and friends. The photograph Kuhn writes about is of herself with a bird and as she points out the viewer can deduce many things from the picture but only she and her family know the whole story behind it and can be reminded of a memory about that day or things in the picture, from it. As Kuhn says, we can take a magnifying glass to that photo of her but without her telling the reader about it, we would never know. Kuhn points out that photographs of ourselves are not to show simply that we exist, but "how we once were." We always reminisce with photos about the past, and can literally see our past selves in them. The clothes we wore, how old we were, can all be seen in the photograph and also, the memory of who we were and what our lives were like at the time it was taken can come flooding back. I think family photography may not be something photographers think about often unless it's their profession/preferred subject matter. Again, it is so engrained in our culture that it has become natural for us to do. But it's important to note that photo albums, as Kuhn pointed out, area narrative of our lives essentially.

Photography, Birth and Death.

"To take a photograph is to participate in another person's (or thing's) mortality..." Up until I read this article I had never really thought of photography that way, although now I do. I don't take a lot of portraits of other people so I never had to think about how I am capturing someone's mortality and essentially making their likeness immortal through a negative, or an image file. But there were so many times I've looked at old photographs and thought about how every single person in the picture was dead, regardless of what they were doing in the picture. It's strange to see a moment captured of someone who is no longer alive, so I think when we see photographs of people who are dead it doesn't make sense to us. Photography has been given to us as a medium to capture moments of us at our liveliest; birthday parties, celebrations, etc. It captures of essence of our lives in the photo and a photo of a dead corpse cannot do that because there technically is no life to be seen in the photo. Pictures of corpses truly are "the living image of a dead thing." Not only is it seen taboo in our society to photograph the dead (it's seen as disrespectful to the dead), I don't really think many people see a reason for it now that we get to have so many pictures of our loved ones when are alive. Since photography has become accessible to virtually everyone it is not necessary to wait until someone has passed to be able to take a picture of them like so many had to when photography was still an expensive and exclusive medium.

Photography at the Crossroads

I really enjoyed what Bernice Abbott had to say about photography in general in this piece. She mentioned that sometimes photographers get lost in the technique and forget about the content and I strongly agree with that. This essay is from 1951 so of course we have had many technological advances since then but even at that time photographers were spending a lot of time in the dark room trying to perfect their technique. While this is important, it should not be the focus when taking a photograph. As Abbott points out, there have been many "How to do it" books on photography. While these are helpful with how to use cameras, compose a picture etc., you can know how to do all of that and still not know how to take a meaningful picture. Photography is more than just pointing and shooting. "The photographer creates, evolves a better, more selective, more cause seeing eye by looking ever more sharply at what is going on with the world." A photographer can see a moment worth photographing in places where others may not. And I also like what she had to say about documentary photography. It is often in a separate category almost from photography itself which I don't really understand. Photography was originally used to document and make likenesses of people as a keep sake or to send to loved ones. People used photography to show what was happening in their lives and the world. Documentary photography does just that. It is so engrained in our culture that sometimes I think we forget it because we are so used to seeing it. Without documentary photography where would our newspapers, magazines and websites be?

Lee Miller - The Siege of St. Malo Response

I found Lee Miller’s article, “The Siege of St. Malo” to be rather interesting. Miller included so much detail that I was able to envision the scenes in my mind as I read along. She gives of short snippets of the scene around her as she lists off the flower pots in roomless windows, the chimneys putting out smoke from the houses that burn around it, a cat howling itself to death, etc. It was almost as if she was giving us photographs to see in our minds instead of a photograph that we can actually look at. I really enjoyed that aspect of her writing. Another part I thought was interesting was when she compared her current surroundings to her last memory of them. For example the patio in front of the hotel once being covered with tables and umbrellas now being covered in barbed wire. It was all so interesting for me to visualize and it really gave me a feeling and sense of the atmosphere. Everything she wrote was so easy to visualize for me and I really liked that. The man that had reached the top of the hill only to be shot and fall over, she said he was waving to death – this was another part that caught my eye. I just really enjoyed the sense of atmosphere that this essay gave me.

NYT: Bush Image Stagecraft Response

I find it very interesting how far the White House will go to make sure president Bush look good no matter what. What I find more intriguing is how the New York Times article mentioned how much of the presidents appearances are made for television or photography. There was one part in the article where it mentioned, “The type was too small to be read by most in the audience, but just the right size for television viewers at home.” That quote shocked me entirely because I would think that the president would make the banner easily readable for both audiences. Although, this is an example of how technology is growing more towards pictures and less with human contact. It would make sense for the White House to make sure that their main concern was to be technologically advanced, otherwise the country might form doubts about the presidents image. It is not surprising that from the time Bush was in office that the efforts to have the perfect image and camera angle for the present have most likely increased. This is an issue that probably goes unnoticed to most Americans because the people are so used to advancing technology that they trust the picture rather than seeing it in person. I am not sure if this is something that we should be concerned about, or a good thing. The good part of it is how technology has come so far, but the bad part is how reliant we are on technology. Since we are so easily persuaded by an image it is now easier for companies to manipulate what the public sees and they will not second-guess it. 

NYT Articles About War Imaging

What I found most interesting about these two articles, specifically the article about former President Bush and his stage crew, is how much propaganda is used and easily the consumer is molded by imagery. In the Bush article one of the key four crew members in setting up the stages for Presidential speeches said that "Americans are leading busy lives, and sometimes they don't have the opportunity to read a story or listen to an entire broadcast...But if they can have an instant understanding of what the president is talking about by seeing 60 seconds of television, you accomplish your goals as communicators." This theory follows the cliche, 'seeing is believing.' While I understand that presentation is extremely important in presidential speeches, or what is essentially propaganda, I was amazed to see that in the 2003 fiscal year had a budget for $3.7 million towards the 'image makers.'
The second New York Times article, complements the idea that imagery can be extremely persuasive. This article instead focuses on how wars can be fought through television coverage. The power of television however provides a problem for the government, they have to find a way to control what is shown to the public, in order to produce the reaction that they want to see (which is also discussed in the Franklin article "From Realism to Virtual Realty..") The footage and imagery that were exposed during the Vietnam War, is part of the reason that the government is so anxious to limit the coverage of war. Which leaves plenty of room to wonder what is being left out of the authorized images.

Miller: The Siege of St Malo Response

The Miller reading in the Illuminations book brought the reality of war to life. From earlier readings of Wells it mentioned how woman were subjected towards “domestic” photographs and the men were associated with war photography. This article visualizes the grotesque nature of war. Miller even mentioned on how she stepped on a disembodied hand. This article points out that woman photographers were included in the middle of the war action. Miller was in a town in France that was in the middle of battle, and mentioned her close proximity to the aerial bombings. She was friends with some of the soldiers and was asked to photograph them in war, and also to give them a kiss. She did not make it seem that she was offended by the men’s request other than that they were homesick and fighting in forced conditions for their families. The whole article was about loneliness and the reality of death. She struggled with her photograph because the city she once knew was in ruins. She constantly mentioned the random gunshots that would come by from where she was occupied at the time. She found dark room materials in a shop down the street when she ran out of film and even though there was no running water she was appreciative of the resources she found that would help her develop her film. She decided to make a darkroom in a small room, but a gunshot ruined the absolute darkness. In the end of the article it was about her sitting in a dark room with an innocent kitten in horrible conditions. This whole article was depressing and she was constantly surrounded by danger, but it pointed out her courage and passion about photography at all costs. That is something to admire about a woman going out into a “mans realm” in the mist of danger. 

CT ArtsCorp Internship to underserved communities.

Application for the 2013-2014 Connecticut ArtsCorp internship. This internship provides undergraduate and graduate Fine Arts students opportunities to take their art intounderserved communities in Connecticut to improve the quality of life for its residents through arts experiences.

Students will receive academic credit for the successful completion of their artistic project.

A budget of $950 will be made available to the student or students selected for this internship opportunity.

Completed application and one letter of recommendation from the SFA faculty member who will supervise the project are due April 15, 2013.

Application

Gatsby Exhibitions CLOSE this weekend!

Note that ARTH 3560--History of Photography paper assignment for ALL students concerns photographs in Millionaires and Mechanics, Bootleggers and Flappers: Speaking of The Great Gatsby,  and in Director's Cut, both closing at the William Benton Museum of Art THIS WEEKEND, SUNDAY MARCH 17 AT 4:30 pm. If you've not started work on your paper by choosing your images and writing notes about them, you'd better do so NOW!!

Society and the Spectacle

We, as a culture, are immensely drawn to the photographed spectacle. The mass media is well aware of this fact and uses the constructed spectacle to exploit us in almost every aspect of our social lives. The most obvious means through which we are presented with a constructed spectacle is through advertising. Advertisers exploit the “naturalness” believability of photography in order to present the viewer with a fetishized image of whatever they are trying to sell. The ironic part is that society has definitely caught onto the fact that all advertisements are constructed and nearly all material the media presents us with is manipulated in some way, yet we continue to buy into it all. Why is this? It seems that advertisers know how to appeal to a certain part of the human psyche without the viewer even noticing this is happening. The idea of the denoted and connoted message and their presence in advertisement photography seems to explain why these fabrications are able to influence society to the extent that they do. The denoted message, or the literal reality presented by the advertisement photograph is obviously constructed, whether it be through selection of what is to be included in the image, or digital manipulation. Therefore, the human psyche automatically turns to the connoted message, or the inferred cultural and social references, as a source of truth. Because the viewer is so conditioned by society to interpret the symbols presented here in a certain way, they will ultimately feel a certain way about an advertisement without even realizing anything has happened. This also explains why individuals from different cultures may interpret the same advertisement photograph in completely different ways. The constructed advertisement is only able to successfully convey its point through its use of the constructed ideals of society.