"The Discourse of Others"

Craig Owens in “The Discourse of Others: Feminists and Postmodernism,” discusses postmodernism as a period, per say, that attempts to upset the reassuring stability of the past. He states that “Not only does the postmodernist [art] work claim no such authority, it also actively seeks to undermine all such claims; hence, it’s generally deconstructive thrust.” Owens discusses how the mechanisms of postmodernism work to expose “system(s) of power that authorize certain representations while blocking, prohibiting or invalidating others,” and we can see immediately, the accentuation of ‘equality’ displayed in the description of the nude couple on the side of a space craft. As Owens points out, the image which supposedly makes the man and woman equal (as a result of disrupting the reassurance of male domination in the past), also manages to reassure male hegemony through the phallic reference of his raised arm. This example suggests that “postmodern feminist practice may question theory and not only aesthetic theory,” thus the implicit history of Western mankind is as valid in analyzing ‘the nude couple’ as its visual presence.  Owens furthers the notions that views of femininity are so tied to the past when he says that issues of gender are often “skirted,” and many feminist works have become, or appear to still show signs of the ‘male pejorative,’ through the overall theme, that despite postmodernisms characterization as the ‘complete indifference,’ what may at first come across as something feminist, may to another be the opposite, and thus it is our choice to perceive it in one way or the other.  This theme is evident also in Lisa Moore’s Sperm Counts: Overcome by Man's Most Precious Fluid, in the chapter “The Money Shot in Pornography and Prostitution,” where she analyses a growing trend for “money shots” in pornography, which she too has linked to ‘our’ male dominated past. The discrepancy in these films is whether the ‘act’ is one of male domination, or female pleasure, which emphasizes Owens argument that postmodern trends can be perceived in both lights, particularly by way of being feminist or non-feminist. Moore does, in the end of the chapter state her belief that the ‘act’ seems routed in male hegemony, but that on multiple occasions women report “liking it”, and even in pornographic films, they appear not to be submissive, but rather equal partners in the act, thus, postmodernisms attempts at breaking ties with the ‘stability of the past,’ is so routed in the past, that any image, or ‘act’ is subject to interpretation by choice.

Mercer - “Reading Racial Fetishism: The Photographs of Robert Mapplethorpe”

In “Reading Racial Fetishism: The Photographs of Robert Mapplethorpe,” Kobena Mercer explores the work of Robert Mapplethorpe. Mercer describes Mapplethorpe’s subject matter “gay, S/M ritual, lady bodybuilders, black men,” as representative of a “reworking of the old modernist tactic of “shock the bourgeoisie.” This subject matter, with a “vaguely transgressive quality…is given heightened allure by his evident mastery of photographic technology.”

Mercer begins to focus on the “photographs primary [representation of] a ‘look’.” A photographs ability to produce a ‘look,’ Mercer believes, in the case of Mapplethorpe’s Black Males, does not represent “the individual behind the lens, but as a cultural artifact that says something about certain ways in which white people “look” at black people and how in this way of looking, black male sexuality is perceived as something different, excessive, Other.”

This idea of the perception, by white people of black people, references earlier art historical representation in art of the “Other” or the orient during the 19^th century. Also, interestingly, the general representation of the other in this manner was often portrayed in a heightened sexual manner.

During the 19^th century, it was often through the gaze of the male artist the orient way depicted through the female nude. This representation of the female other often, unfairly, fabricated the orient as weak, and vulnerable in comparison to the powerful, and dominating west.

This representation through the guise of the male artist recalls to me the notion of the photograph as representative of the ‘look’. Mapplethorpe’s photograph, according to Mercer, function as a representation of the way in which white people sees black people, not necessarily how they truly are.

Nan Goldin

I enjoyed this passage mostly because it explained her work to me. I enjoy how it is about sexuality and gender but at the same time, not really. By that I mean of course the people in the photos are transexual, drag queens, etc. but it shows them as they are, real people in real life. Not everything is about their sexuality. As it has been noted she was the first photography to really photograph this community. I admire her courage not to photograph them, but the fact that so many of the people she knew died & yet she still managed to go on taking photographs. Although this seems like a natural thing to do , I can't imagine focusing on this community & having the ones I love die around me. A good quote from this introduction is "The pictures in this book are not of people suffering genre dysphoria but rather experiencing gender euphoria." Although they were living a hard life I appreciate her focus on the positive. Although focus on homophobia, the AIDS epidemic,etc.are all extremely important, it's nice to see a positive portrayal of the LGBTQ community.

Richard Prince

"I never associated advertisements with having an author.'' After reading this quote by Richard Prince, although I don't necessarily agree with it, I think I now understand his work better. Although as pointed out in the article that often "there's not a pixel, there's not a grain that's different," it's less about the photograph itself & more about the concept behind it. The Marlboro man has always stood for the white American dream& that's what Marlboro has been using to sell its cigarettes. Artists like RichardPrince who "appropriate" the work of others focus on the concept rather than "making" a piece. I think its easy to dismiss this kind of work because we have been taught that originality is key but I think there is something original about artists taking another's work and making it their own. For me personally, I probably would not be happy if someone "appropriated" my work & made hundred of thousands of dollars off of it & I know many others who wouldn't be either. Like Mr. Kantz said, I think there should be some recognition to the original "author" (whether you believe them to be or not). But I don't think we should limit artists to those who "create" their own art meaning are the original authors of the piece.

Nan Goldin

The article written by Nan Golden was wonderful.  I love how she describes how she came upon taking pictures of Queens.  She just found these people walking on the street and filmed them because she was ‘infatuated’ with them.  I feel that this is how a photographer should make their work.  An artist must find things they are drawn to, and should make art based on those things.  Nan Golden does just that.  She continues to photograph Queens and her other transgendered friends for many years, even though the Queen lifestyle wasn’t accepted in the 70s. Nan breaks down the walls of sexuality and intimacy in her images just by showing The Ballad of Sexual Dependency.

Although she never says it, I feel that the AIDS pandemic drives her to capture these people on film forever.  She never knows when a person might die because of the disease and taking their picture memorializes them.  Many of her models did in fact die of AIDS.  The impact it had on the gay community was great.  Using drugs and being self destructive lead to many people in the gay community to contract AIDS.  Nan mentions that some of her friends are now in recovery from drugs and alcoholism because of their past and the AIDS pandemic.

Nan Goldin: The Other Side

     I really enjoyed reading this passage after going over some of Nan Goldin's most famous work in Digital Media. It was specifically interesting to me because Goldin talk about her work in photography so calmly. Several of her closest friends died at a young age from AIDS or drug overdoses yet she shows little emotion in this passage about it. Her work is extremely powerful because of the way she photographed the queens she lived with, but emotionally it must have been hard to see her friends come and go. It was obvious in this passage that Nan did not live a simple and typical lifestyle. The fact that The Ballad of Sexual Dependency documented the type of lifestyle that Nan lived, makes it so personal and enhances the work. Even though Nan did not follow typical sexual orientation,she became close with others that had much in common. Nan talks as if the lifestyle her and her queens lived was nothing out of the ordinary, but to social standards it would have been a wild and unusual way to live, at the least. After seeing The Ballad of Sexual Dependency and reading about the process I can understand why the emotion and rebellion that was apparent in her photography became so popular.

The Subject as an Object

This chapter discusses the human body as an object of photography. Surprise, surprise, women were found as sexualized towards heterosexual men even in the Victorian age. Unfortunately, women's bodies are well accustomed to objectification.

"objectification is a term usually for the criticised advertising and publicity images as well as erotica for eroticising the female body in a way which turned women into mere objects for the male gaze."

Not only in photography, but in paintings as well, the gaze of a viewer (male) and the gaze of the object (the woman) is very similar.  The surveyed female will either watch herself be viewed through a mirror, or return the gaze to the viewer.  Without clothing, the female knows she is naked and bare to the elements, however she excepts the viewers gaze.  The woman has thus become an object for our view and nothing more.

Paintings of Venus is a perfect example of the female gaze.  Venus at her Mirror sees the viewer looking at her naked body, and she in return, gazes back through her mirror. She not only adores herself but then acknowledges our presence as viewing her as an object.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Diego_Velaquez,_Venus_at_Her_Mirror_(The_Rokeby_Venus).jpg

No only is there use of objectification, but also the representation of erotic views.  In another Venus painting, we see a naked woman purely depicted for sexual viewing pleasure. In Olympia, by Edouardo Manet, Venus returns the viewer's gaze with a straight forward gaze.  She acknowledges the presence of the viewer.  Subtle hints also tell us she is an erotic figure.  By being adorned in jewelry and shoes, she is not fully exposed, and has chosen to represent herself this way.  Also, the little black kitten at the bottom of her feet represents sexual desire and femininity.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist255-s01/courtesans/olympia.jpg

 In the cases of photography it is not the male gaze that objectifying the object (a woman) but her gaze as well that is seen as "doubly objectifying".

Phrenology and the Anti-Pornography Campaigns

First, I wanted to comment on a section of the Wells reading for this section that talked about the sciences of phrenology and physiognomy used in artworks.  Both these sciences were used by artists to classify bodies based on their visual appearances to form deeper meanings. I wanted to relate it to another art history class I am taking, 19th century American Art, because one artist, William Sydney Mount, uses phrenology in some of his works, specifically in "The Painter's Triumph". The artist has certain characteristics like arched eyebrows, a protruding forehead, and widely spaced eyes to have a quality about him the audience would be able to relate to. I just thought it was interesting how the two subjects intertwine and reading this section reminded me of learning about it in my other class, and I'm sure the other students who are in both of these classes thought the same thing. 

Another interesting part of the Wells chapter was reading about the anti-pornography campaigns. It is important to understand how men view woman in everyday life based on how they are perceived in images, and also how women see themselves. I agreed with the reading that paparazzi photos have solved photographs reputation for hiding the real in celebrity photos. It's true that people pick up the tabloids and love seeing candid pictures of celebrities with their makeup off or in bad outfits because it brings them back to reality and we see them as real people again. Advertisements , print and commercial, hide any imperfections and I think that a big part of why some celebrities have such a good fan base is because their candid or paparazzi photos are what people relate too. People feel better about their own bodies when they see how their favorite stars actually look like in real life. I would have to disagree with the reading when it says paparazzi photos also encourage them to view their bodies critically and finding every little flaw because I would argue that is how people react when they see the advertisements and the fake, or Photoshopped images. The real, candid pictures are more beneficial to society than magazine covers are. 

Nan Goldin - The Other Side Response

This article by Nan Goldin was very fascinating! It’s not often that I can be emerged into this type of world and it really was quite enjoyable to read about. I find it so interesting how these people are able to just not care what society thinks and be themselves no matter what it takes. It really takes courage to do something like that. I also love how much drive Nan Goldin had with her work and how she had such high goals as to get these queens on the cover of Vogue and then to actually find out later that yes, some of them had made it into Vogue. The passion that she has for these people is just absolutely amazing and I really loved reading about it. She says that she was infatuated by them when she first saw them crossing the bridge and I would believe it based on the way she describes her feelings towards them and the experiences they shared together.

Regarding Gladwell...

An exhibition includes a work by Inigo Manglano-Ovalle, Phantom Truck, inspired by Colin Powell's description of the mobile labs targeted by Scud missiles to no avail. The installation spaces makes the viewer complicit in "seeing" the fabricated targets.

http://www.minnesotamonthly.com/media/Blogs/Twin-Cities-Culture/March-2013/Truthiness-or-Dare/

Response to Tina Modetti "On Photography"

Throughout the semester I have continuously come back to the article that we read at the beginning of the semester by Tina Modetti simply titled “On Photography”. I found it very interesting how she tries to distinguish between what it means to be an artist versus a photographer. She considers herself a photographer, NOT an artist and actually seems to talk down about photographers that try to be artists. She seems to think that to be a photographer one should try to embrace the quality of “truth” that a photograph hold. At least this is how I interpret her way she says she produces “honest” photographs. When trying to make a photograph art she believes that the photographer rarely succeeds because they are simply mimicking other types of art but at a lesser state. Modetti seems to think that the photograph tells the truth. I personally do not believe this because the photograph is always in some way being altered by the photographer. Whether it is altered in the darkroom, or today in the digital world in photoshop. I believe that the “truth” is being altered from the second the photographer took the photograph because of what they chose to keep in the frame and what they chose to exclude.

Modetti seems to not care if photography is considered an art or not, just as long as she can continue making photographs and be able to critique others to say if they are good or bad. She seems to ask why should it matter that much if it is art or not, since that seems to be the argument with many. It is just interesting to think about.

Mulvey reading

What struck me about this reading was the comparison of the how the film Un Chien Andalou, the work of Georges Melies, Kruger's We Won't Play Nature to Your Culture, and Burgin's Hotel Latone use imagery in different ways to exact a psychological reaction from the viewer. They each employ the image as a medium in contrasting ways.
While Melies' film A Trip to the Moon, employs the narrative ability of cinema, and instead uses the first special effects exhibited in a film to provide the psychological stimulation. The viewers at the time were still beginning to understand narrative film in general, and the inclusion of images of aliens, and a rocket hitting the man in the moon in the eye must have shocked and inspired the imagination of its audiences. By contrast, Un Chien Andalou, forsakes narrative completely and uses garishly realistic images to "attack" the viewer. When we watched this film in my French Cinema course (Louis Bunier was French although Dali was Spanish), it impacted me because not only had I never before been so horrified by a 15 minute movie, but I was surrounded by a large group of people who were similarly disgusted. The ability of the images to flash from one to the next, without me being able to stop or fully process them gave me the feeling that I had just undergone some sort of psychological assault. Like the images in Melies' work, these seemed unexplainable by reality, and therefore became more significant to me because I had just seen them in reality.
Burgin's Hotel Latone functions similarly in its book format because the images are meant to seen in the sequence in which they are arranged, bringing narrative into play. It is this narrative that We Won't Play Nature to Your Culture interrupts in its exhibited form. However, the text included with Hotel Latone and We Won't Play Nature to Your Culture, engages the viewer and turns them into a reader. This process triggers the mind in a way that looking alone does not accomplish. The effect of the images in combination with the text effects the psyche similarly to the examples of cinema.
With the differences in subject matter of these films to these photographic works, I had not realized the similarities in the approach to the psychological that they employ. However, the different ways in which they engage the mind sheds light on the mechanism of sight, and the image.

Haley Taylor

Richard Prince

If I was Jim Krantz, I would be very angry that my photographs were re-photographed and exhibited under another name.  It was Krantz's original idea to take the close-up photograph of a cowboy hat.  Krantz states, "Like anyone who knows his work, it's like seeing yourself in a mirror", so I'm sure it was very startling for him to see his work displayed in a poster hanging outside the Guggenheim Museum.  Richard Prince's explanation for his 'art' was that "he was trying to get at something he could not get at by creating his own images".  I feel like this a confession of his inadequacy at having an original thought, and creating an original piece of art.  Someone could argue that the idea of photographing someone else's photograph is original and artistic, but the idea and message behind the photograph is, by right, someone else's.

Later on in the article, Krantz makes a very light-hearted comment, seeming to take the stolen photograph idea well.  Krantz states, "If imitation is a form of flattery, then I will accept the compliment." Again, if I were him, I would be very unhappy with the idea that Prince was making incredible amounts of money on my idea.  And as I finished reading, I was happy to see that Krantz's anger level increased as Prince's popularity and income increased.

Richard Prince

It in an intriguing thought that context could play such a role in the public eye. That the same photographs that appeared widely in advertisements could be more recognizable when Richard Price re-photographed and exhibited them, is something I had never really thought about. there are, of course, advertising campaigns that have stuck in my mind before. But, at the same time, I could not name any of their photographers.

It makes sense that the photographs would make more of an impact as photos within the context of the institution, because of the inherent nature of the language of advertising. Not only does Price's work call into attention the formal qualities of the work itself, but it illuminates the role of the gallery space as a different realm for thought than mass media. However, art photographs have been distributed through mass media with publications, so who is to say which photos are art and which ones are not? Maybe it is the fact that ads have price points and descriptions that cater to the good they are attempting to sell that de-emphasizes the photograph itself?

Either way, and whether or not Price intended for the exhibition to be a somewhat sarcastic comment on the nature of mass media, I cannot help but think that I would be upset if I had taken one of the photographs initially. But since I did not take one of the photos, I think the omission of the original artists names is an interesting comment on the act of re-photographing as an original piece of art. I mean, how many times have people re-photographed certain tourist locations that have been made famous by photographs? If they exhibited them themselves, how would that function?

Haley Taylor

Laura Mulvey Reading

What I found most interesting about this article by Laura Mulvey is something that she said towards the end of the article. She said "objects become symptoms, referring back to the psyche, as it robs them of their true nature as material things and gives them a new meaning and significance" (384). I completely agree with this, what I thought of when reading this is all of the 'souvenirs' that I own. For example, tickets from concerts that I have been to. In reality they are just a piece of paper but the memories that I have create a personal attachment to certain ones. And this is clearly the same for photography, depending on the subject it can evoke many different emotions from the viewers (and it all depends on the individuals previous thoughts or experiences with the subject). What I think is interesting that is also mentioned in this article is how some of Kruger's work have titles that are cliche phrases, but in the same paragraph it also notes that the image/word relationship is a montage or collision, and that one does not illustrate the other. I find this contrast with the first quotation interesting because while certain images may evoke different meanings from the viewers, the idea of having titles that do not directly correlate with the image would in theory change the way the viewer sees it. By this I mean that traditionally titles are associated with the pieces in order to help the viewer understand. Therefore the title with no significance to the image could throw the viewer off because they are looking for the connection.

Richard Prince

In class on Tuesday we talked a lot about the photograph as a medium for an artist rather than a piece of art in itself. This article discusses the controversy behind using another artists' original work to create another form of art from it. Art of all types is reproduced extremely frequently today, whether a song, photograph, or book. Because this happens so often, I believe the main issue lies in whether or not ample credit is given to the original artist. 

Krants comments, "I'm not a mean person, and I'm not a vindictive person,'' he said. ''I just want some recognition, and I want some understanding.'' I would feel the same way if I walked into an exhibit and saw my work being incorporated into someone else’s without having any idea about it beforehand, or at least without receiving any recognition or credit. I think this also relates to the controversy behind the Migrant Mother and the lack of recognition the subject of the photograph received despite continuous exposure. Kranz emphasizes that he’s not upset that his work was used, “If imitation is a form of flattery, then I will accept the compliment,'' but rather that he wants his work, wich he considers distinctive, to be recognized as his own rather than as someone else’s. 

Shock Photography and Conceptual Art

In the Barthes article on Shock Photography, he ends by saying: “The literal photograph introduces us to the scandal of horror, not to horror itself.” This reminds me of the discussions had in class about conceptual artists and works like Self Burial. In these works, it is not about the photograph as art, but rather, it is about the documentation of the event as art. It was discussed in class how works like these were critical of the mindless viewing of especially television, which at the time had become widespread. These works, while at first glance are easy to follow, become more and more problematic after looking at them for longer periods of time.

In this way, I would argue these works are very much so related to the kinds of “shock photography” discussed in the Barthes essay. In shock photography, it is not about the photograph as shocking, but rather, it is about the event and the documentation of those horrors as shocking. In this way, shock photography is also an exercise in artwork’s ability to be critical. At first glance, images like these seem distanced and the viewer remains unaffected because people have become so numbed to graphic imagery and violence, especially today. After looking closer though, one begins to see really just how horrific the images are; they stop looking at the picture and begin to see the event itself.

Conceptual Photography: Photography as "art"

Something I found interesting about contemporary photography is the fact that it was able to finally secure the position of photography in the art gallery by elevating photography to the status of “art”, but it goes about doing so in a very different way than previous types of photography that attempted similar things, such as pictorialism. Both the conceptual and the pictorialist photograph attempt to prove photography’s place as an art form by arguing the presence of the hand of man- the photograph is not simply a document recorded by a machine. However, pictorialism attempts to do so through presenting the physical photograph as a work of art by relating it to past art forms, such as painting, through darkroom manipulation techniques while contemporary photography elevates photography as a whole to an “art” form by proving that photography is an effective medium through which a larger work of art can be conceived. Pictorialism presents the photograph in and of itself as a work of art through the use of techniques that are specific to that medium, while contemporary photography presents photography as a medium which can be manipulated through the use of other art mediums (painting, text, printmaking) in order to create a piece in which the use of the photograph lends to the creation of a larger meaning. The use of the photograph in contemporary photography lends itself to the desire to challenge the status quo because of its relation to reality, thus contemporary photography presents the medium of photography as a whole as a true form of “art”.

Conceptual Art

In Well’s “Conceptual art and the photographic” she describes the developments that “contributed to shifting the position of photography in the gallery.” Firstly the rise of pop artists began to use photography as a means of critiquing consumerism and lifestyles, which some felt may have legitimatized photography in some way because, photography was seen “as inherently different” from “established art forms such as painting and sculpture.” Second, “in Conceptual Art the photographic became accepted as a valid medium of artistic expression.”

Conceptual art, Wells describes, “stressed ideas.” “The manner or vocabulary of expression” and the way in which “the spectator responds to the image” were what was important. In other words, the art object itself was not the most significant aspect, but instead the event in which the object existed and how the viewer perceived this moment. For example Keith Arnatt’s “Self Burial” is a literal documentation of the event or process as it took place that plays with the idea of performance. 

Richard Prince

According to Randy Kennedy, in the late 1970s, Richard Prince was known as a pioneer of appropriation art, the photographing of other photographs from sources such as magazine ads, enlarging them and showing them in galleries. This, Kennedy suggests, begs the questions “what do the photographers who took the original pictures think of these pictures of their pictures, apotheosized into art but without their names anywhere in sight?”

Jim Krants, a commercial photographer, whose photographs had been used as the subject of some of Prince’s works, described it as like “seeing yourself in a mirror.” A mirror that caused him to question whether he “should be proud, or if [he] looked like an idiot.”

Prince describes his work as “trying to get at something he could not get at by creating his own images.” Kennedy notes Prince was not shy about his intentions as he once said, “No one was looking. This was a famous campaign. If you’re going to steal something, you know, you go to the bank.”

This brings about the issue of authenticity. Does Prince’s re-photographing of these images then make them art? But why are the commercial photographers inherently not artists?

Prince’s method reminds me of a quote from Picasso where he says, “good artists copy, great artists steal.” I’m not entirely sure how I want to interpret what Prince does and how it relates to that quote. I cannot decide whether I feel his re-photographing of these commercial ads elevates them to high art, or belittles the art of commercial photography.

Roland Barthes 'Shock Photography'

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this piece by Roland Barthes on shock photography. He presented some very interesting and solid arguments as to why shock photography just doesn't work as it's really meant to. It's so true that we, as viewers, look at shock photography in our own "freedom" as he put it, in our comfortable homes or in a comfortably tempered gallery room. We're not actually there where that poor girl is being circumcised by smiling older woman, we're not really experiencing it and even though it's still uncomfortable, we are guarded. We're protected by the fact that it is a picture and all of the initial shock of what we're viewing was already soaked up by the photographer herself.

There was one thing that Barthes said in this piece about how shock photography was too intentional for photography and too exact for painting and how they "lack both the scandal of the latter and the truth of art." It just really made me ponder on if shock photography is even considered art. I would think that it would be because just like any type of art, it's usually trying to get a message through to the viewer; shock photography is no different. It's just that we as a people have been so desensitized through the media, whether it be gory movies, graphic video games and explicit lyrics in songs, even books these days, so shock photography makes even less of an impact on the viewer.

The Subject as Objective

The fear of ‘designer babies,’ cloning, and the alterations of bodies by way of genetic enhancements is both a fascinating and scary topic. The notion begins to remind one of Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, through themes that infer science is becoming too advanced. In my Dairy Herd Management class, we also discussed the anxiety in regard to genetics and genomic innovations in the early ‘90’s, beginning with the first genomic sequencing of the human gene in the mid 1970’s. Dairy cattle have extensive records on milk production, and thus are perfect models for genome sequencing, because as scientists ‘map’ DNA and RNA sequences, they can compare them to milk yields and try to determine what gene does what. The idea in genomics is that we could eventually predetermine genes to ‘create’ humans, or animals with traits that we deem important. The idea of idealizing humans is an old trope, but as Wells points out, a pressing topic in modern photography; the themes of disgust, homoerotic desire, objectivism, voyeurism, and fetishism are all tied to ideals of ‘normalcy,’ and they work to either represent humans as idealized, or as un-idealized in the efforts of displaying social difference. 

Embodying Social Differences

I wanted to pay closer attention to the section of Wells' reading that discusses photography as a gateway to the differentiation between social classes. In the 19th century when phrenology was introduced, it was used as a scientific form of subjugation which was used to justify the mistreatment and dehumanization of minority groups. As Wells said, "Typological classification was reassuring to the urban middle classes because its convenient generalizations helped make the mass of strangers in the city seem more familiar." People are scared of what they do not know or understand, resulting in predisposed discrimination. This method of thinking parallels the concept of group think or mob rule, in which an ideal is upheld or perpetuated due to its commonality. This type of thinking caught on because people could easily buy into the claim of a scientist saying that there was reason or justification for discrimination. It reassured the dominant class, which was the normative model for comparison. Anything outside of what was considered 'normal', i.e. white, male, middle class, etc. was to be feared. It is ludicrous to think that physical characteristics are signifiers of moral character and therefore people with what are considered abnormal characteristics should be discriminated against. Does that make the Hunchback of Notre Dame an anomaly? I found it interesting to think about identification tactics of today and how they are all still emphatic visualization - from photographs to iris scans and fingerprinting, which still aim to sort and classify people, just in less blatantly discriminative terms.

Response to Wells p.167-192

I really enjoyed the part of this week’s Wells reading that pertained to classification. It’s interesting how photography played into beliefs that seem very strange to us today such as phrenology and physiognomy. Photographs helped to turn people into types. They were used to clarify and show what traits were of certain people by making composites. They would use this to see traits shared among certain groups. One in particular that the book showed was traits among Jewish people. These composites were put together by a Jewish man in order to validate Jewish identity. It is interesting to notice how these composites could be seen in a good light as well as bad depending on who exactly put this together or was viewing it. The original context for this particular image was good, he wanted to unify the Jewish population. Composites were also used to define criminals which could be bad. People with certain traits were generalized together and labeled as criminals even if they were in fact not.

Franklin: Images of America’s Wars

Bruce Franklin discusses in his article that after the War in Vietnam, the power of pictures had become very clear, and with that came the need to control the production and releasing of images. This sort of censoring by the federal government was strictly observed in the Gulf War for which there are very few images. Thus, as discussed in lecture, television news stations began to incorporate computer images and “talking heads” into their reports to fill the gap left by all the missing images. In the Wells reading on “Bearing Witness,” a question is raised about the role of photographs “taken with cheap digital cameras and on mobile phones.” (pg. 91) Today, images like these have come to play a similar role to that of the computer images and “talking heads” in the news; they are used when there are no professional photographs, and have even developed their own merit in their “rawness and immediacy.” I would argue that this phenomenon extends beyond the practice of photography and is perhaps most prominently seen in the use of social media. News stations have come to embrace social media like Facebook and Twitter in their reporting techniques, reading people’s “tweets” about events and sharing posts or encouraging viewers to “like” them on Facebook.

The Subject as Object

After reading The Subject as Object in the Liz Wells book, I kept going back to the heading, Objects of Desire and Disgust, and the small excerpt by John Berger on the relationship between men and women and the male gaze.  Berger states,

"Men look at women.  Women watch themselves being looked at.  This determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves.  The surveyor of woman in herself is male:  the surveyed female.  Thus she turns herself into an object - and most particularly and object of vision:  a sight."

I kept playing with the idea of women turning themselves into objects, and that the objectification may have started with man, but it ends with the female reaction to what is happening.  By becoming a sight, which is technically classified as a noun, a woman's appearance becomes an object a man keeps for himself.  I was then interested in the idea of the double objectification, once by the lens of the male eye and again by the lens of the photographic camera.  The reading also stated that although the "concept of objectification has special relevance to photography", women outside the picture frame are already viewed as objects, again reiterating the idea of double objectification.

Also under this heading was the talk of clothing and props to 'signify' differing classes and occupations in erotic imagery.  This just adds another element to the objects used to further objectify the female form.  In the anonymous photograph on the bottom of page 178, the naked woman is sprawled out across a disheveled bed with interior plants, an oriental rug, and patterned fabrics draped across the space.  All of these objects tell a fabricated story of an exotic woman for men to long for and want, much like the 'other' that we discussed from previous readings.

Mary Warner Marien Response

To start off, I really like the title that Marien choose (What shall we tell the children?), I think it's very clever in relation to the topic. This article discusses how the history of photography was formed, or even is being formed. She focuses a great deal on Beaumont Newhall, and the many revisions that he has published on the history of photography. What I find interesting about the changes that many of these revisions hold is that they are simply an enhanced version of the previous text, but instead they contradict each other. Newhall expands and detracts what he considers art, and what is the importance of photography based on the times. for example, his feelings about photo-montages: "I did not feel that photo-montage was a kind of photography...I now feel that it is important to include a passage on photo-montage because it wouldn't exist without photography..."(213). In that very same paragraph Marien also notes that Newhall recognized that a historian must "reserve the right to change his mind." What I think is interesting about this concept is the fact that it makes it so that history becomes whatever one designated 'historian' interprets it to be. And because it is only one persons interpretation than it makes sense that it would change over time because based on circumstances peoples thoughts and feelings change and therefore their interpretation of something might change. I think that another reason that the history of photography can be open to interpretation is because of the mechanical aspect of the medium. The mechanical aspect leaves room for the machine to change/upgrade as the technology allows/evolves. For example when the camera was first invented, they could never dreamed of the type of cameras that exist today.

Tourism

The Case Study entitled Tourism, Fashion and ‘The Other’ from the Wells reading discusses the effect of the tourist brochure and tourist advertisement on the way people view, experience, and photograph the pictured destinations. This viewing and picturing through the “dominant photographic language” established through tourist brochures is not necessarily new with the rise of photography. Looking back to the early nineteenth century and the work of the landscape painter Thomas Cole, one can see how the imagery of tourism has shaped the experience of visitors in the same way as it does today with photography. A specific painting by Cole, The Falls of Kaaterskill, painted in 1826, is a landscape of the falls which captures the beauty of the colorful fall leaves of New England, the majesty and power of the falls, and the tranquility of the land. When Cole painted this work, the Kaaterskill Falls had emerged as a major tourist destination, and had been built up to accommodate visitors including the construction of steps, ramps, bridges and viewing decks. In Cole’s painting, however, all of these constructions and the many people who would be present have been evacuated. Even though this is not how the falls would have actually looked to the tourist of the time, this is still the way they would think about and remember the falls.

Subject as Object

Well’s “The Subject as Object: Photography and the Human Body” explores the “late 1980s and 1990s…extraordinary number of photographic practices and critical texts [that] took the human body as their central subject.” This interest in the body in photography during this period, Wells explains, may be “linked to the emergence of new critical theories and ‘body politics’” as well as “social crises” such as the AIDS epidemic. 

An interest in new technologies, in relation to genetics and medicine in the form of cloning, genetically modified food, and the technological altering of our bodies, also contributed to this altered representation of the human body.

Fran Herbello’s Untitled illustrates how these influences contributed to the representation of the human body in photography. In this image Herbello “represents the body as a kind of attire.” The figure is positioned with his back to the viewer. The photograph is cropped to show the bottom of the head, the neck and part of the back. The focal point of the image is the clothing tag sewn into the center of the shoulders, stitching into the skin leading the viewer inward. The portrayal of a tag sewn into human flesh makes a comment on the idea of altering the human body through medicine and technology through a shocking photographic image. 

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.