Gladwell Response

As stated in Gladwell's article, ever since Eadweard Muybridge disproved the convention of ventre à terre, “belly to the ground”, with his sequential photographs of a galloping horse, photography seemed to capture reality and truth itself.  Methods of photography have been adapted by different disciplines to assist in tasks in the medical and military fields. The medical field uses mammography as a screening tool that aids in the detection of breast cancer.  The military uses a device called LANTIRN that would take a high-resolution infrared photograph of a four-and-a-half mile range to assist in the detection of tractor trailers that the Iraqi’s were using to fire rockets from. These images; however, show a reality that humans must decipher; the truth must be interpreted.  Gladwell speaks with a physician, Dave Dershaw, in the article, who explains all of the different kinds of calcium deposits, lumps, and bumps and the plethora of different traits that make something benign or malignant.  This is the same as the military devices, although there is an image that shows what might be a possible target, that possible target may not be a threat at all.  Human perception and interpretation is needed to make these tools successful, and even then, that is not always the case. Mammograms only increase the chance of detection by ten percent, and the definite number of Scud kills due to LANTIRN was zero.  These methods are shrouded in controversy, especially mammography, because of these low numbers.  In the case of mammography, ten percent means that thousands of lives can be saved every year.  These methods could be better, but as of right now these are the best, and doctors and military officials alike will use them to increase the chances of fighting the enemy, whether it be a disease or a human enemy.  These methods are not as strong as they could be because the error that cannot really be effected is the human one.  These images require human interpretation.  Human interpretation changes based on the individual and some are better at interpreting these images than others; some are better at finding the truth. Technology, in this day and age, has become a comfort.  Not only does it make lives easier in day-to-day life, but mammography and devices like the LANTRIN make the public feel as if there is something that can be done to keep them healthy or safe.  These images capture reality, but without human interpretation the images are simply images.  These technologies combined with human interpretation comforts the woman who was just diagnosed with stage 1 breast cancer and can be treated, just as an attack could be thwarted due to LANTIRN’s images.  Tools and technologies aid in the detection of a threat, but it is the human interpretation that must interpret the truth from that image; whether the threat is real or not.   

The Picture Problem

“The Picture Problem” by Malcom Gladwell looks into how useful Photography really is. For instance, in his article he talks about how photography helps in the time of war. Gladwell’s example of how photos are used on the battlefield is the Air Force destroying Scud missiles that were being fired at Israel by Iraq. The Cameras the Air Forced used cost 4 million dollars and took the perfect picture. Later on it was shown that the number of Scuds that were destroyed for sure was 0. People wonder how could this be possible we were using the perfect camera. People tend to believe pictures. “That photography not only does not, but cannot lie, is a matter of belief, an article of fait, (Gladwell)” The problem ended up being on the pilots end. The pilots were working on locating the Scuds at night and only had 5 minutes to get the job done. The problem with working at night is that human’s depth perception is messed up. This is a clear example of human error. Human error occurred because of the 5 minutes window does not give a person a lot of time to do there job accurately. People tend to rush, when they are under pressure. When people rush, mistakes are made.

Gladwell’s article shows human error can cause a lot of problems but it is not the only issue. The Quality of the imaged also caused problems for the pilots. The resolution of the images when this occurred was good. You could see images and identify an object. For example, you could tell what a truck was, but from the altitude the pilots were at you could not tell much else. This shows flaws in technology. Using the greatest cameras money could buy, you would expect better resolution in an image. Gladwell’s article shows that human error and flaws with technology still exist. Technology and humans need to keep evolving before it can become perfect. But it needs to evolve at the same rate because technology will not do any good if people cannot operate it.

Response to The Picture Problem

The Picture Problem by Malcolm Gladwell addresses a problem in photography that has been around since its invention in the early 1800's; the fact that not only are photographs not inherently true but if you do believe that what you are seeing is true, your interpretation of that truth may be different than the person sitting next to you. Photographs in any form are all about trust, whether you trust your own ideas and opinions of an image, the photographer that took the image, or whether or not you trust the person that is interpreting the image for you. Both of the subjects in this article highlight the difficulty of expertly interpreting an image that can only give you half the story. Because you can only get so much information from something like a satellite image of part of the Earth or an X-ray of a breast, you need people to employ their expertise of the subject and tell you what to think.
In the case of the Gulf War, when the United States Air Force was trying to identify and destroy trucks carrying missiles and all they had were images that were taken from thousands of feet above the site they were watching. People analyzed the images and determined which trucks to target. Follow-up research showed that none of the targets they went after were in fact carrying missiles or dangerous.
In researching the validity of mammography and its ability to be affective, researchers presented radiologists with a 150 different mammograms. The fluctuation of their opinions on whether or not the women in the X-rays had cancer was astounding.
These two examples of how much an opinion of an image can vary shows that while images are good tools for drawing conclusions, they are not absolute and neither are a single persons impressions of an image.

Michelle Hawran: Picture Problem

Gladwell’s “The Picture Problem” explores society’s reliance on photography as a truth through two interesting lenses: medicine and the military. Gladwell uses the example of destroying Scuds (or so we thought) during the Gulf War to prove that yes, cameras take a snapshot of what is physically in front of them, but it’s the interpretation of photographs that truly make meaning of what is being seen through the lens. I agree with the point that photographs have the potential to cause confusion, seeing as no two people view a photograph the same. In the case of mammograms, the viewer might not even understand what they’re seeing at all. In some cases, photographs provide a head start, but as physician David Dershaw noted in the article, a viewer needs to “respect the limitations of technology.” I believe that tactile and manual exploration is just as important, even in a culture where we rely so heavily on our visual sense. Just as Gladwell stated, the using your own finger to examine your breasts lets you feel what’s actually there, a skill that has taken a backseat to letting images tell us what is happening around us. However, even through all of the confusion that such a limited thing like a photograph can cause, I still believe that photography gives society a good head start, especially in the case of mammography. Just as Gladwell explains, the mammogram doesn’t promise anything. Mammograms can reduce the risk of dying from breast cancer, but  it’s a specific form of imaging that has its limitations and boundaries. But even with these limitations, we are by no means better off without it. 

Christine Dooley's Post!

In The Picture Problem (2004), Gladwell inspects the promises made by imaging technology (e.g., clarification, truth, accuracy) and finds that pictures, regardless of their resolution, are limited in certainty. Often, the information this technology shows us is not "the whole picture." In the Second World War, the U.S. Air Force successfully bombed the ball bearing factories in Schweinfurt using Norden's computer, Mark XV, but Mark XV did not successfully tell the involved advisers and officers that the Germans could easily continue manufacturing airplanes without the ball bearings. In this case, technology needed outside information to fulfill its promise of accuracy. As Physician David Dershaw demonstrates with a number of x-rays, the same limitations apply to mammography. A white blur could indicate deadly calcification, benign calcification, natural glandular tissues, or harmless (sometimes harmful) carcinoma. At most, a screening can indicate the existence of a lump, but outside information (e.g., gene-signature research) is required to interpret and identify the lump. The seek-and-destroy method (i.e., find the tumor early, eliminate the tumor early) that radiologists practice surely saves lives, but many of the eliminated tumors, even if they were cancerous, would not have conquered bodies. Therefore, mammography does not give us the useful information we thought it promised (that is, mammography does not identify cancer for us)--a human hand can offer just as much. Seemingly, pictures are most useful when they are not solely relied upon to produce the results. 

Gladwell's article reminded me of an episode of The X-Files that I recently watched (called "E.B.E"), where F.B.I. special agent Fox Mulder receives photographic evidence of a UFO in Georgia. Mulder, who is quite passionate about proving the existence of extraterrestrial biological entities, readily believes the picture is "the truth." Mulder is often called a "believer," and even has a poster of a UFO in his office that reads "I want to believe." His partner, Agent Scully, often called "the skeptic," needs substantial proof and deems the image "fake." She explains to Mulder that he trusts this "evidence" too readily and needs to interpret the photograph carefully. When he analyzes the picture with the bureau's computer, nothing irregular is detected. But when he looks with his own eyes, he detects inaccuracies: the reflection of the moon on a car window in the picture is misplaced. In this case, someone physically manipulated a photograph to mislead Mulder, but it still raises an important question. Should one readily believe the information pictures present us, like Mulder, or reject the information, like Scully? Should we be believers or skeptics? When Photoshop is a click away, what do pictures really promise us? Gladwell does not answer these questions, but he directs us towards being more careful consumers of imagery. Sometimes, all this takes is using our own eyes. As Gladwell's re-analysis of Colin Powell's "evidence" demonstrates, some images, even high-resolution satellite pictures, require trained experts to fully interpret them.   

Nick Saccary's Response to Picture Problem

Malcolm Gladwell’s article, “The Picture Problem” sheds light on an issue that is often overlooked. At what point does the advancement of technology surpass the ability of humankind. Malcolm Gladwell’s article discussed a few types of photography including mammograms and war related targeting and imaging systems that create highly detailed and technologically advanced photographs. However, the usefulness of such advanced photographic technology is only as good as the person using it.  Mammograms produce images that can show different patterns in breasts that a normal examination simply could not. Mammograms show calcium buildups and patterns called “calcifications” that could potentially be cancerous. The examiner then views the x-ray and determines if the buildup is dangerous and needs to be removed, or is benign. The problem is that there is no standardized way of telling if an abnormality is dangerous, therefore, it is up to the examiner to make the decision. In a study, 10 certified radiologists were asked to look at one-hundred-and-fifty mammograms. Not one of the radiologists came up with similar results proving that, even with such advanced technology, it is the knowledge and aptness of the human that is the final determinant. The same scenario During the Gulf War, The United States Air Force used a $4.6 million camera called the LANTIRN that had the capability to take four and a half mile high-resolution infrared photographs of the area below the planes. The Air Force then used this technology to target and destroy Scud missiles that were being fired at Israel from Iraq. At first thought, the technology sounds foolproof until you factor in the human behind such advanced technology. While the machine did what it was supposed to do, displaying objects on the ground with precision and detail, it was then up to the operator to make the choice of whether or not the presented objects were real threats or not. 

The Picture Problem

The Picture Problem deals with how obscure our high tech imaging of today still is, in particular the imagery in two fields were debates are easily sparked: mammography and bombing. With the case of bombings, before the technology of today the pilots basically had to make an educated guess on when and where to launch the missile in order to get it to hit the target. In order to make sure the target was hit, the information needed to be good, and the missile needed to have a large range of effect. Modern photographic technology now allows us to zero in on a target using imagery, allowing us to use smaller, less damaging bombs with more accuracy. Gladwell uses the example of bombing a target inside of a house: before, you would destroy the entire house; now we can pinpoint the missile strike to take out just the kitchen. In mammography, X-ray technology has developed to a point where we can now find lumps a centimeter across, and find small deposits of calcium that may indicate a tumor. The advanced technology has allowed radiologists to find these lumps and catch potentially deadly breast cancer tumors in their early stages, while they can still be semi-easily treated (easily being used in regards to the treatments of an advanced stage cancer). Thousands of lives have been saved. But the problem with both of these instances lies not with the picture, as the title would suggest, but in how that picture is interpreted, or the human element. It takes a human to determine if a dark area in a luggage X-ray is a bomb or if it's something else. A human is needed to say that yes, that truck is carrying a missile or no, that truck is just an oil rig. A mammogram may show calcium deposits, but whether that means cancer or not is up to the judgement of the radiologist. With mammography, it's very easy to sue your doctor if he says a lump is cancerous and it turns out to be benign, or vice versa. In the war in Iraq, people were outraged because we were bombing locations where targets were nowhere near, just because the information, the human element, wasn't accurate or good enough. We need to improve on the human side of things before we can truly advance, as an image, no matter how crisp, clear, and perfect it may be, is only as good as the human interpretation given to it.

Response to The Picture Problem

While reading Gladwell’s The Picture Problem it became clear that although the sorts of photographs taken by radiologists and war personnel were and are meant to be highly detailed factual documentations of certain subjects (air strike locations and breast tissue), once human perception is involved the facts can become confused by each human perspective involved, and sometimes simply because the quality of an image is not very “good.” Of course, as an Art History major, I have been taught to be aware that every person has a different perspective when it comes to art (and anything visual for that matter). Each perspective will generate a different meaning of the visual, but it is often hard to be aware that even seemingly factual documentation of the sort addressed in the reading can also generate different meanings for separate individuals. I think that the fact that these cases were addressed is evidence that the ideas and debates from the 19^th century about the documentary aspects of photography (discussed in Wells) have been carried to the present, although they have definitely changed. By this I mean that they have turned into debates of how much factual evidence can be seen or interpreted from a photograph, and in Gladwell’s case, he addresses the “limits of looking” opposed to the perspective that photography granted limitless looking--at factual evidence; a perspective that many 19^th century people seemed to have. Baudelaire is a good example of someone with the second perspective, who saw photographs as a means to strengthen the validity of factual evidence already known (also mentioned in Wells). In my opinion, it is interesting to see how these questions have evolved up to the present. 

The Picture Problem

The problem outlined in The Picture Problem seems to be a combination of human error and the faults of images. Although technology may advance exponentially each year the human mind does not, that of course takes centuries of evolution. Mammograms can now spot the minutest of irregularities in breasts and satellites can pinpoint the location of a suspicious vehicle in a foreign country but it is not guaranteed that the radiologist or the CIA analyst can correctly interpret the image these technologies provide. In each case discussed in the New York Times article it was the lack of knowledge needed to accompany the respective image that lead to a problem. In the case of the targeted ball bearings factories in Germany during the Second World War, the Allies were able to locate the factory and use the Mark XV to calculate the most accurate bomb release time and demolish the buildings. After the fact, when it was revealed that Germany could fair well without the bearings, the military was left looking foolish for not investigating their target to the fullest extent, leading them to lose dozens of planes and pilots. Again we see in the case of the photographs produced by Secretary of State Colin Powel that allegedly provided proof that the Iraqi government was harboring weapons of mass destruction, were very much open to interpretation. Multiple analysts had different opinions on what the images actually contained, leaving a number of holes in Powel's argument. Therefore the problem with pictures isn't necessarily that the pictures are faulty or misleading but without the pertinent information or skills to investigate and image the mind is left to imagination. This gap between reality and interpretation can lead to complications, whether it be over-diagnosing DCIS as life threatening conditions or unnecessary bombings resulting in loss of life.

Kelsey Carone, Response to Malcolm Gladwell

Malcolm Gladwell’s piece “The Picture Problem: Mammography, Air Power, and the Limits of Looking” parallels the multi-million dollar photographic technology that has played a role in warfare throughout history and the medical imaging equipment that promises to detect breast cancer early enough for the greatest possibility of survival. While one guarantees to destroy, the other guarantees to extend life, but Gladwell reveals that neither image produced may be as beneficial as they are touted to be. Both images require human interpretation, which, of course, vary from person to person and therefore, affect the information gained from the image. For instance, the LANTIRN could take a photograph of a four-and-a-half-mile area, but required human analysis to determine which area to bomb. Mammography reveals some of the calcifications in a woman’s breast tissue, but a skilled radiologist must examine each spot to determine whether or not it is cancerous. The image itself does not contain the necessary information; it merely provides a visual map to begin upon. Furthermore, while this visual map provides direction, it may lead to the wrong destination altogether. This is evident in an issue Gladwell calls the “Schweinfurt problem.” In World War II, the Allied Forces determined that German ball-bearing factories must be destroyed, as ball bearings were an important element of airplane manufacture. The bombs were very accurate, and the factories were successfully demolished, however, the machinery was not. That hardly mattered, as the Germans had stored away ball bearings, and they were not as imperative to airplane manufacture as the Allies had originally believed. Mammography’s Schweinfurt problem lies in a specific type of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ. Nearly every case of DCIS is removed upon discovery, resulting in thousands of cancer removal cases a year, but despite this statistic, the death rate of cancer has steadily risen. As it turns out, medical science is not yet advanced enough to know from a mammogram whether or not cancer has metastasized, and it is not known whether metastasis is affected by the size of the tumor – one of the only pieces of information a mammogram can effectively give.

Malcolm Gladwell ends his article on a peculiar note. It seems as though, while there are limits to looking, they are subjective. They depend on the situation the photograph is being used for. When it comes to mammography, the benefit outweighs the risk – it is better to be safe than sorry. Mammography still saves lives, despite its limits. When it comes to waging war, perhaps the picture should be just a little clearer.

Congrats to Rebecca Uliasz Feminist Art Award Winner!

See post dated Friday, April 19, 2013 for details concerning this award. Congrats again Becca!

How Cool is This? Amazing unknown photographer from the 1950s

Is a children's nanny:

http://www.messynessychic.com/2013/02/18/found-at-auction-the-unseen-photographs-of-a-legend-that-never-was/

OWS marks anniversary of Kent State shootings

On May 4, 1970, the Ohio National Guard gunned down Jeffrey Miller, Allison Krause, William Knox Schroeder, and Sandra Scheuer during an anti-war protest at Kent State University.

http://www.facebook.com/OccupyWallSt1

Appropriating appropriation

The plot thickens....

Skateboard company famous for appropriating famous artist styles sues others for "appropriation":

http://www.complex.com/art-design/2013/05/barbara-kruger-responds-to-supremes-lawsuit-a-ridiculous-clusterfk-of-totally-uncool-jokers

Powerful Dove Videos

Powerful Dove Videohttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpaOjMXyJGk




Even though I basically wrote out in detailed description about this video, I think everyone should look at it, especially art students because I think that this artist in this video is amazing. When looking at the Dove effect advertising video you provided, I immediately thought about this video and how it relates to what we view as being real. A lot of the women in this video didn't have makeup on and maybe that's why they described themselves as not being as attractive as they really were and that's a crucial part of the Dove make-up ad you provided. The make-up and the Photoshop is what we see up on the billboards that makes beauty a standard. Both of these Dove videos in conjunction show how women everywhere sell themselves short of their own beauty due to the overpowering edited beauty that's placed everywhere everyday.

The Great Gatsby in the news

http://today.uconn.edu/uconn-reads/2013/05/02/gatsby-in-the-news/

The Dove Effect

What if there was a that law required companies to state if their images have been altered, photoshopped etc? How come cereal boxes have to state "enlarged to show texture" but cosmetic companies dont have to state "eyes enlarged and skin retouched(... to show...beauty?)" I can't help thinking this, but I guess it wouldn't really work, because it can be argued that all photography is "altered." We can talk for days about how self image is a huge problem in the United States and many young girls aren't aware that many of these photographs are retouched which only contributes to this problem. I think the solution lies in exactly what dove is doing, exposing the problem and dispersing the information to society in short clips like these.

If the Copy Is an Artwork, Then What's The Original?

Where is the line between appropriation and copy? Richard prince dances around this line with his work, creating dynamic visuals with borrowed imagery. What strikes me most about Richard Prince is the way he assembles his images. The appropriated image is scaled and distorted. Does this act of alteration create something new? As the author described in the article, Jim Krantz was the original photographer of the Marlboro shoot. His reaction to seeing his image at the Guggenheim was one of surprise, which eventually turned to anger as the success of Prince's pieces rose. I feel Krantz has a right to be annoyed at someone else gaining fame and fortune through one of his own images. Prince uses advertisements to create art and commentary, that is his medium. It is true that someone else had to create said advertisement, but one must presume they were compensated at the time of creation and these images could therefore be considered public domain. The last line of the article was very thought provoking, where Krantz asked if italicizing Moby Dick makes the book his, which it doesn't. I do see a difference however in Prince's alteration and re-contextualizing of predisposed images versus Krantz's example of appropriating a best-selling book.

The European Avant-garde

This passage questions the definition of surrealism. When first introduced as a type of art in the early 1900's, surrealism was based off of theories from Sigmund Freud, a psychoanalysis. Freud put great emphasis on the relevance of dreams and unconscious desires to the human mind. He believed that peoples internal urges hinted at their true needs and provided an explanation for different behaviors. The art world followed in this path due to the unconscious decisions that are made in creating art and the contribution that one's minds eye makes to work rather than it simply being fully intentional. Man Ray explained that "he painted that which cannot be photographed and photographed that which cannot be painted." I think this idea emphasizes the difference between and the uniqueness of each medium and that there is a specific time in which an artist will need to use both techniques, but they can be used together in order to fully grasp concepts of the world and convey meaning in them through art. Surrealism can be defined by Andre Breton as "a desire to deepen the foundation of the real; to bring about an ever clearer and at the same time ever more passionate consciousness of the world perceived by the sense." This quote illustrates the idea that surrealism allowed the artist to show their deeper experiences of the world and allow more freedom for manipulating photographs as well as facading their meaning.

American Formalism & Photography History

Wells 257-76, 279-81

In today’s art world, it is difficult to exclude any type of creative process as a form of art. My freshman year of college, I took an aesthetics of art course where we discussed the definition of art. It is difficult when you think about it to define exactly what makes a painting, photograph, sculpture, etc. an art form. One could say that anything someone creates is art, but what if they made it unintentionally? It is very interesting to think back to the nineteenth century when people were debating the importance of art in the world, especially with the new medium of photography. Clement Greensburg thought that in order for photography to be considered art it must tell a story. However, there are many photographs we have learned about in class that leave the viewer making up their own purpose of the image or meaning behind it. The pages also describe the many styles of photography in the past and the way in which photography has transformed as a medium in order to fit into the art world. 

Photo-Secession: Process and the Hand of Man

Wells, Thinking about photography, pg. 11-17, 257-71

I found this reading very interesting, especially after returning to the passage after having an entire semester studying the history of photography. When I first read these pages from Wells in the beginning of the semester, I thought the information about the acceptance of photography as an art form in the nineteenth century and the relationship between painting and photography was a fascinating thought, but I did not fully understand the challenge artist's such as the three I am studying for my paper, Stieglitz, Strand and Lange faced when producing their work. I also did not fully grasp how photographers mimicked painterly styles in order to have their work accepted as an art form. Steve Edwards points out that in today’s world, we cannot imagine life without photography. Later in the writing, Van Deren Coke describes the advantages photography provided to painting, such as allowing the painter to have photographic images to serve as notes rather than sketches. A quote that I think directly relates to my thesis in my paper and explains the relevance of photography in the art world is, “…the same object represented by different photographers will produce different pictorial results and this invariably not only because the one man uses different lenses and chemicals than the other but because there is something different in each man’s mind which somehow gets communicated to his fingers’ ends and thence to his pictures.” (Harker 1988:46).

Annette Kuhn -Remembrance Response

In this article Annette Kuhn talks about family photography, and the memories that come stem from images. In the beginning of the article Kuhn discusses how photographs are evidence, and they can "be material for interpretation." This poses the photograph as a short of problem or riddle to be solved. I think that this is an interesting take on how a family photograph can have multiple meanings based on each members personal opinion. Kuhn discusses this possibility of multiple meanings in a photograph of a herself as a child. The image was taken by her father but she notes that on the back of the image her mother wrote a caption, possibly "to force others' memories into line with her own." It is also a way for the mother to insert herself into this moment. The captions also work to form a sort of family drama, especially when the daughter edits the caption.

The idea that the meaning of a photograph can be interpreted in many different ways reminds me of the phrase "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder," (the meaning is in the eyes of the beholder as well). I also enjoy how Kuhn notes that photographs of the past deal a great deal with the future, "family photographs may affect to show us the past, but what we do with them - how we use them - is really about today, not yesterday." Which makes sense when relating to the idea that we are shaped by our pasts.

Richard Prince: New York Times

    After reading this article I understand the type of work that Richard  Prince is trying to create, but I don't exactly agree with it. In class we discussed how using someone else's image can send a different message by the artists gender or title, but I still feel unconvinced that it should be appreciated as much as the original artist. The article stated that one of Richard Prince's photographs sold for over one million dollars setting a record. It does take talent to blow up an image without pixelation, but to have that kind of compensation for something that isn't his idea. The creativity behind the images is what is truly valuable and I feel like he is jeopardizing that. Prince says" I just want some recognition and understanding." This may be true, but you don't see him donating some of the money he sells his photographs for to the original artist.

Art in the age of Terrorism

Reading the article by Karen Randell sparked a memory of my own. Looking back on 9/11 I can visually see the towers falling and the repeated images and film that played on during that day as well as the rest of the week. I was in 5th grade and still young to understand but still have never forgotten what those images are in my head. As Randell says about the Michael Moore film where he plays the sound first then the image and the impact it has on us, is interesting to me. As they once you loose your sight your other senses become heightened and I feel like in this sense it does. The sounds can not be forgotten and is a powerful tool. With photography we rely very much on our eyes and what the photographer wants us to see, but when we see nothing and hear it we create our own image in our head. As if we were our photographers. I think that is important to hold onto especially with news castings and social media its hard to differentiate the real from the "real". 

Lee MIller : Illuminations

    I found this reading about Lee Miller's time in the military fascinating considering she went from being a model to an extremely different career as a photographer for the military. I believe we discussed in class how Lee Miller was able to photograph such gruesome scenes because she used the camera as a shield to separate her from the action. After reading this passage it is obvious that she was very close to the live action of the war. The way she talks about the war it almost seems that she was a solider. Being a women in this position must have felt out of place to some degree. At one point the soldiers asked her to grab bottle of wine for them and the way she talked about this it seemed like she constantly was asked to do tasks like this from soldiers. Having had such a traumatic childhood I feel like it would be hard to be around mostly men all the time. Most of the reading however, was of battle tactics and live action. It seemed more like a war movie then about photography in the context of a war. Ultimately I feel her photography was so successful because she didn't take the events that happened in the war personally and just focused on creating excellent photography.

Speaking the Unspeakable: Invisibility and Trauma after 9/11

In Art in the Age of Terrorism Speaking the Unspeakable: Invisibility and Trauma after 9/11 I was interested in Randell's notion of the displacement of trauma in Hollywood. More specifically, when Randell discusses how Spider Man 2 engaged issues surrounding the attack on New York. The author explained this idea of displacement by stating that the event is scripted into the film under fantasy pretenses. It is this placement in the fantasy world that seemingly mitigates the viewers anxiety regarding the issue. The act is extended by taking ordinary people and turning the hero spotlight onto them. These films are aimed at strengthening the idea that the average, real person has the capability to conduct heroism. This act also reinforces one's pride in their country and culture, which Randell discusses when talking about the citizens standing up for Spiderman in Spiderman 2.

Surveillance : Candid Street Photo After 9/11

I read the post titled 'Candid Street Photo After 9/11'. It was not necessarily something that I paid a lot of thought to, whether or not people mind being photographed in public. Candid photography is a beautiful form of photography. It intends to capture moments in their origin, sometimes expressive of raw emotion.

It is important to remember that not everyone equally enjoys having their picture taken and as the photographer, one should be mindful of personal space. As the title implies, the content seems to be driven at how to remain candid and complementary whilst photographing a given subject. The author of the article lists select guidelines as to how to appear as though you are not a threat and are instead intrigued by a particular moment, which I found interesting. These tips are especially useful in the post 9/11 society as people are more vigilant and tend to be more on the look out for something suspicious. This post even addresses proper attire and equipment for street photography in effort to disuade conspicuity.

Nan Goldin

After reading the Nan Goldin piece in Illuminations, I feel as though her work cannot be fully appreciated without understanding the bond that Goldin had with her friends and models. Goldin's explanation of the infatuation that first drew her to take photographs of drag queens is what makes the work emotional and interesting. Pairing the photographs with Goldin's remarks on "gender euphoria" and creating a "third gender" via dressing in drag make the photographs impossible to dismiss, as they have clearly captured something that until Goldin's infatuation, mainstream photography had dismissed. Where others saw freaks or societal pariahs, Goldin saw beauty and possibility, and was able to glorify their lifestyle through her work. Perhaps most impressively is the extent to which Goldin immersed herself in her friends' world to create the work. Although she was initially an outsider, Goldin was able to gain the trust of an entire group of people, and captured an intimacy that cannot be faked.