Response to Deborah Bright

In this essay Deborah Bright negotiates between the historically banal depictions of landscape and their underlying political and social charge. In the western art historical trajectory landscape paintings and photography have generally targeted the middle class and promoted a timeless, utopic view of life. No matter what era, one can always reflect on landscape imagery and be reassured that a pristine nature still exists somewhere, even if the viewer can’t see it for himself or herself. Bright asserts that landscape imagery serves a greater purpose than just being an artistic placeholder for the nonpolitical, in fact, the landscape painting or photograph is filled with cultural information that abandons its often trite intentions. Bright provides the example of a Norman Rockwell landscape of “small town America” (p.334), what one might think of as being an innocent idyllic image of American life provides the viewer with a very narrow image of reality. The small town is geared directly toward the well off, white, and protestant demographic, it is dotted with small churches, promotes small business culture by glorifying main street America. In what one might think of as a universally accessible image, this landscape becomes exclusionary of a range of social, economic, and racial demographics. What fascinated me about Bright’s take on a piece by Norman Rockwell was that as a kid I always bought into this presentation of the “real America”. Growing up just a few hours outside of Stockbridge Massachusetts, the home of the Norman Rockwell Museum and his studio, I would take daytrips with my mother to view his work. Especially as a child, it was so easy to view his work based on its surface presentation but looking back it served no purpose but to shelter me and other viewers from the cultural realities in front of us.

The Carnivore's Dilema -Matt

While traditionally we have focused on the omnivore’s dilemma on the treatment of animals, the issue because even more pointed when talking about carnivores. Through this anecdote I am representing the majority of Americans, who live by the fast food lines. We all saw how disastrous it was in Super Size Me, and even more so in My 600 pound life. Face it, America is fat. We overeat partially because our marketing machine tells us fast, greasy, tasty, is better than healthy and nutritious. This issue becomes somewhat personal for me. I have worked in a retail store called DXL Destination XL, where they sell, you got it, extra large clothes.

Having comfortable clothes is never a bad thing, but when a person is 5 or 6 extra large, there are enormous health consequences. One of the employees was an obese man. One day, he didn’t show up for work because he died in his sleep. This was a tragedy he was only 28. Thus the carnivores dilemma is maintaining a healthier lifestyle in the fast food capital of the world. We must focus on improving the health of the nation as well as the way it is produced.

Free of Bias? -Matt

                                                                                    

 On Documentary photography, there was a quote from the Wells book that really stuck out from me, “There was an assumption that the world was productive of fact and that those facts could be communicated to others in a transparent way, free of the complex codes through which narratives are structured (93). This is an extremely interesting idea and one that mainly holds up true; the idea that the world as we see it is the world as it is. The true reality. 

However, this fails to realize that even if the world is the same, the lens from which we view that image is completely different. Due to these differences, every single documentary photography from the 50’s and before was biased. It’s not their fault, it’s just their angle. Every artist would have taken an image in a slightly different manner. We saw this in class of the green building with the branches. Different photographers are going to shoot the image differently therefore an unbiased photo is a myth.

Ideology of the Family -Matt

First of all, the idea of the family unit and childhood as a human creation was fascinating. I generally thought of these things as natural, not human creations but in when discussing this it does make sense. 

Robert Frank appears to be the prominent photographer of Cold War. His iconic images are high contrast, have organic viewpoints that often imply motion. It was the general uneasiness of the time reflected in the art. The tension of the Cold War had infiltrated photography.

The discussion about Franks’ Bar,gallup, New Mexico, 1955-56 piece was interesting. The angle created a sense of confrontation. By having the camera angled lower and looking up, it makes the figure more intimidating. Having the figure be a Native American wearing a Cowboy hat was of course the central irony of the piece. Here was a Native American displaying the icon of what is his natural enemy. This was the America that was forming. A melting pot of different viewpoints and struggles. And while the Native American likely was not a fan of the white men who displaced them from the land, he could not discount the iconic nature of the cowboy hat. Here was the quintessential American according to the class; a Native American wearing a cowboy hat. We have the past and the future represented by one picture that displayed the confrontational position that these Americans have been put in.

The most Important picture of all time? -Matt

Google “The Most important picture of all time”, and you’ll stumble across a YouTube video depicting the Hubble Deep Field photo as the most important image of all time. The reason that this image is particularly moving to all of people is that it references the cosmos as more vast than we could have ever imagined. I compare this image to “Moonrise over Hernandez” because they both make reference to the grand scope of the universe. The image is taken in just a fraction of the sky, yet zoomed in this image displays hundreds of galaxies in just the image. 

This image itself could be construed as formalist. The form and shape of the galaxies themselves are the topic of interest. What’s so powerful is just understanding how big each galaxy is, and then seeing dozens and dozens of them at once is mind blowing. We may be looking at an advanced civilization and not even know it. The beauty of the image arrives from the individuality of each galaxy. Each one has a distinct shape and color, adding to the power of the image. In my opinion, yes this image is one of the most important images ever taken. It is an example on how photography can be used in a scientific context, and how photography has the power to inspire. It's difficult to say it's THE most important image of all time, but for me it's up there.

Most iconic sports image-Matt

In 1999, The United States women’s soccer team won the World Cup, and beat China in the final game. The game went to penalty kicks, where ultimately the U.S. won 5-4. Mia Hamm has become the face of that team, and a big reason why was her celebration and the photo taken during that celebration. The image itself is so American it’s hard not to call it a quintessential piece of American photography of sport. She lays on her knees with here arms extended at a 45 degree angle and into the air. Her muscles are contracting. Her facial expression is one of complete and total ecstasy; this likely being the highlight of her life. 

The focus of the shot is on Mia Hamm, while the background is blurred out to increase this emphasis. In the background is a Coca Cola sign that takes up about a third of the background space. This iconic American brand paired up with an American athlete winning a World Cup is a symbol for American power and prosperity. This image seems to take influence from the Documentary Photography. The purpose of the image is to capture the moment as it is happening, not to focus on the flaws or sublimity, but just to display the subject as it really is. In this sense the image succeeds tremendously, and it happens to be one of the most iconic sports photos ever.

Most Iconic Political Image- Matt

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima would be ranked for Americans as the most iconic political photographs ever taken. Notice how I mentioned it to being applicable to Americans only. Different cultures have different histories, making for different ideas about iconic images. This image was taken near the very end of World War 2 by a man named Rosenthal. It was actually the second incarnation, as the first flag raising that day did not create an adequate photo. The purpose of the image is to display American Courage, and perhaps no photograph displays this more than this image. The image involves six men, half of which were killed in the skirmishes that followed. 

The flag sits nearly alone in the sky, taking up a considerable portion and lying directly in the center of the photo. The flag itself is the first thing that will catch your eye, and it will follow the flag down to the soldiers. The sky is grey and desolate but the flag stands proud. Because the shot is taken while the flag is sending, it is not lying at a 90 degree angle, more like a 50 degree angle. That’s because this image is supposed to represent that these men were trying to show the world America’s power, but that it was a work in progress. By having an action shot it creates movement and a storyline; will these men live? This image won the Pulitzer Price the same year it was published because it so accurately describes America. People can latch onto this image because it is so iconic.

I’m resistant to call this image documentary photography because it was staged. This was meant to show the power of America, although it does accurately depict the scene; it lacks any pictorial features and instead is a clear images. That’s why if I had to classify this iconic image Documentary would be the closest.

Looking into Landscape Photography-Matt

Landscape photography has always captured my interest. The scope of the images always tend to inspire me. It’s probably the most effective method of photography to show the sizes of   geographic features by contrasting the foreground and background. During the Wells reading, I was able to learn about landscape photography including some technical details.

A main distinguishing factor of landscape photography is shot to where the horizontal side is longer than the image vertically. By shooting the image in this way, a wider amount of information in the horizontal plane can be displayed. Landscape photos generally include a natural landscape or skyline to display, hence the title landscape. An interesting technical feature of landscape photos is that they generally follow the ‘golden rule’ of landscape photography, the sky should occupy two thirds of the image to create harmony and create an accurate sense of scope.

The landscape images of Jeff Wall in the reading has a very painterly quality. In his images, he sometimes will script an action, and then have it play it out among the landscape. In the photo in the readings, it is paper that is carried by the wind. This action creates motion in the image. He distorts the image by increasing the color saturation it looks like. The effect of the river going down the center of the image break up the landscape and it also matches the greenness of the sky. The bending of the tree that takes up a significant portion of the left side of the image puts the image into perspective. It makes the people look smaller and to that effect increases the power of the image.

The differences between modern and postmodern landscape photography seem to be minute. It seems that postmodern landscape attempts to change or challenge the way we view an image. Generally it is through the title of the image and other small details that lead us to challenge this.

Elements of Portrait photography. -Matt

The portrait is an essential part of any art. Portraits are the capturing of what we look like. More than any other art, photography creates the most accurate portraits because photography generally is the most accurate form of capturing the world. The portrait as we traditionally know it involves one person in the center of the image. Starting from the lower chest, the individuals chest, shoulders, and head are featured. A space of about 10-15% of empty space is generally expected in every portrait. The face is the essential feature of the photo because the face is the essential feature of a person. Portrait photography is meant to show great details and show an accurate representation of who that person is. However, high quality and meticulous lighting creates an image that generally is better than the real deal. The person choosing the portrait can also select the color of the background which can lead to features that are idealized. Thus, portrait photography is nothing like documentary photography because it is too staged and planned out.

Perhaps the most iconic portrait photo would be of Albert Einstein. His hands folding, his intellectual gazing looking into the distance, swallowed by the high contrast lighting. It creates a scene that shows that this man is smart. The main theme here is that portrait photography is highly manipulatable but is an important arsenal in photography. And okay, I guess a selfie could be considered portrait (although it's a stretch).

Response to Nancy Newhall's The Eloquent Light

Kaitrin Acuna

One line in Nancy Newhall's piece on Ansel Adams that stood out to me was the comparison of a print to a symphony. Adams had said that a truly fine print was like listening to a symphony, "...the appreciation of the broad, melodic line, while important, is no means all.' For it to be all, would be like saying the subject of the photo makes the photo. While in some cases this may be important for the success of the photo, it is not the overarching subject matter that will make the difference between a good photo and a great photo. Adams elaborates by saying it is the minor subtleties, the tiny nuances that make a photo able to be appreciated. This is true for music and for photography.

I think it's true that the more you know about a topic, the more you can appreciate the beauty in it. Overall, I know quite little about composing music, but I know today far more than I knew a few years ago. Because of this, there are things that I hear in symphonies that I would not have appreciated, or perhaps even heard without being educated on them.

The same hold true with being a photographer. When I look at a photograph, there are an endless number of aspects to notice. Was it film or digital? What kind of film? Why was it exposed like that? Is that window light? Was there a reflector or was there a window across the other side of the room? Did the photographer find this moment, or construct it? Was this dawn or dusk? Did she develop the film to get this amount of noise on purpose? Why a square crop? Was this medium format? Is the photographer the subject? Why are the prints in this order? These are all questions about the medium itself that it would not have occurred to me to even consider five years ago.

The subtitles of any art form make for an increase in appreciation, and I believe the more you know on a medium, the more you will find to love about it.

“Digital Exhibitionism: The Age of Exposure,” Ana María Munar (2010) HUSKYCT

In the Article “Digital Exhibition: The Age of Exposure by Ana Maria Munar discusses the Digital world. The digital world is constantly growing and changing. It allowed people to digitize everything. For instance, peoples photos, paintings, and music. Before the digital age photos and stuff could only be shared with family or close friends. Social media was invented and changed everything social media created a new platform called web 2.0. Web 2.0 was positive and negative. IT allows the sharing of information with people you do not see. But at the same time it has negative side. “Web 2.0 allows for the digital creation, storage, publication, and sharing of people’s private life” (Munar). Some information should not be shared with others. Also, with the creation of the digital world people now can store information. In today’s world you see information stolen by other people. People often enjoy social networks even with its flaws because it allows for interaction between people. For instance, on Face book or Instep-Gram lets people see photos or videos; then leave comment about it. For instance they could say if it is a good video or a bad video. In addition, you can often like photos or other works you see. This article reminds me of the Picture Problem we read earlier in class by Glad well. What these two articles have in common is they both show how the world of technology has evolved. Also, both show flaws that still exist. In conclusion, the digital world is constantly evolving and will continue to.

Photography, Birth and Death

     An image can bring life into an object, but also take the life away at the same time depending on what the subject is. By photographing a person you are keeping their memory and appearance alive even though they may have physically passed away. Pictures hold a strange control over time because they can make one moment last forever. And even if the image is of something that's already dead, photographing it can make it appear as if that body was alive for that photo. But by photographing a live person you are freezing them at that specific moment of time and sucking the motion out of their bodies. Our eye's as humans want to believe that what we see is real and when seeing an image of a person, whether dead or alive, we want to believe that at that moment everything in the image was alive. The subject of post - mortem photography has been looked at as a very controversial subject, but for some families before the year of 1880, photographing a family member after they had past could have been the only chance they had to capture the appearance of that person. Photography was new at the time and not everybody had the money to get photographs taken often so if someone suddenly passed away they only had that last chance to capture their image. But photography now a days can be used as a tool to make a certain moment such as birth memorable as well. It's amazing that a photo can be the only way to remember such important moments in our lives.

Documentary: New Cultures, New Spaces

     This article in Photography: A Critical Introduction described the ways that documentary photography has changed over the years and walked away from it's initial purpose. It was said that documentary photography began as a usually government funded trip to learn about what was going on in a certain area and to show problematic situations. The images were never meant to be shown on their own, but as a group and represent a certain struggle or issue at the time. Robert Frank had changed the perception of documentary though when he created his book of photos called The Americans. This consisted of photos of average Americans doing what they normally do on a regular day. The subjects ranged from cowboys to coffins and showed them in an almost tragic way. His photos were almost saying that none of the stuff that Americans do have an special meaning. This started to pave the way for street photography and documenting people in their natural habitats, but doing obscure things. The focus on government projects and concern had moved to interest in the people and the world around the photography and capturing the interests that differ among humans. It was stated that documentary photography had been liberated from the political project that it had formerly been associated with. Photography was now freeing itself from it's old constraints.

Photography at the Crossroads

     In this writing by Berenice Abbott, there is a lot of emphasis on the rapid growth of photography and how much the camera and photos take up peoples lives today. In the beginning of the article, she stated that "The picture has almost replaced the word as a means of communication." I believe this to be true because photography has been taken up in so many different categories of our lives. Whether it's to keep record of an activity or your family or to advertise a new car that's coming in 2015 photography is now playing a huge hand in how we live our lives everyday. She also said that photography can easily recreate the living world around us and of our time because the camera is capturing "the now". But she also says that photography is where it is now because of where it started and who put the time into warping it. There was a good point in the article that described the U.S. as being fascinated with the new technology when it came out and pushing the process and device to the extremes and this is something that Europe lacked. But when they saw what was being produced in the U.S., they loved it. This grew the attraction to the camera and what it could make which has shaped where photography is at today. If people were less interested in the beginning, then our lives would be very different and probably wouldn't be based around imagery everywhere we go. But because of the progression that people have made with it, we are now living in an extremely graphic and photogenic world. Anything can be captured now with a camera which can also be a downside. Abbott talked about the fact that as more and more people gain the ability to take photos, subject matter may become less important because the action of capturing the now is so available. It may make certain places and times less special because there could be hundreds of other people with the same photo. People have become less selective with their subject matter which makes the photos unimportant. Photograph's were created to make a statement, and that should continue to be the way that people make their images.

On Well's Case Study: Landscape as Genre

Christie Dooley

Before I studied eighteenth century painting, I dismissed the genre of landscape imagery as uniform and futile. All landscapes seemed overly sentimental. However, Thomas Gainsborough’s portraits, which often include elements of landscape painting, changed my mind. I grew to understand landscape as a multidimensional construct rather than a sappy formula. Landscapes are more interesting than I thought. While some landscape images share aesthetic concerns (and are, indeed, sappy), others thwart conventional  compositions to convey, for example, a political message. All landscapes, including photographs, are organized according to cultural values and personal ideologies.

As Deborah Bright points out (and Wells cites on page 304), landscape as a genre was invented in the seventeenth century in Dutch painting, and reinterpreted in English painting and topographical documentation of, for example, the American West. Every “view,” including the romantic garden in your backyard or the national park you visited on holiday, is built (whether for pleasure or commercial purposes, or to deliver a certain sociopolitical or environmental statement). While Gainsborough’s landscape-portraits tooted the landownership of the gentry, Camille Silvy’s photograph River Scene, France (ca. 1858) depicts an idealized rural scene unaffected by the bustle of industrialization. Indeed, certain sights are so iconic, they become trite. Contemporary Norwegian photographers choose to photograph everyday urban landscapes rather than their iconic mountains, discouraging the authenticity of previously constructed views of Norway. Other photographers might decide, for example, to eliminate the “golden rule” from their images to upset the predictable harmony of traditional landscapes. Or, like in Jeff Wall photograph A Sudden Gust of Wind (after Hokusai) (ca. 1993), they might purposefully follow the golden rule, only to exaggerate the lack of harmony present in the image. As a genre, landscape is constantly rejuvenated and adjusted to reflect new (or returning) attitudes or causes.

For some mind-blowing and unconventional landscapes, check out Richard Mosse's photographs, taken with Kodak Aerochrome: http://www.jackshainman.com/artists/richard-mosse/

Photography at the Cross-roads

What I really enjoyed about the first part of Berenice Abbott's article, Photography at the Cross-roads were her comments about how much photography has progressed and why. I think more than any other art form the photographic process is ever evolving and continues to improve with no end in sight and it is unique in that way. What is so great about its evolution is that everyone that has ever photographed, in one way or another, has had a hand in shaping what photography is today. Photography has had such an incredible impact on history pretty much since its invention because it has been something that nearly anymore could do and be apart of. An incredible community has been built around photography and it has been such a positive force in the development of the camera and the art itself.
I also liked what Abbott had so say about what photography is. Abbott claims that at its core photography is all about one word and that word is selectivity. I agree whole heartedly with that comment and I think what makes photographers great is their ability to be selective and make decisions on the fly. Photography is not like painted or drawing in the sense that you have tons of time to compose and produce your image and as you are doing so you can make selections and decisions as you go. In photography, when you are trying to capture a moment, a lot of the time you have to make a decision in a fraction of a second because the moment comes and goes just like that. Being able to train your eye and brain to make those decisions quickly and correctly is probably one of the hardest things to do and it is what makes great photographers.

Berenice Abbott on Documentary Photography: Self-Awareness and Selectivity

Christie Dooley

In her 1951 publication Photography at the Crossroads, Berenice Abbott states that the world communicates through pictures almost more than words. People—and photographers—are increasingly aware of the present and pressed with the challenge of capturing it. Abbott herself responds to the present—she addresses current events, speaking of the “atom age” and the documentary role photographers play in such a volatile moment in history (which she refers to as "the crossroads").

Abbott summarizes the development of photography as a response to interest and demand, especially in restless and expanding America, where portraiture flourished. She frankly criticizes the commercialization of photography—the use of cheap props, the imitation of “bad paintings,” and the abandonment of realistic documentation for retouched and sentimental images by photographers like Henry Peach Robinson. As a result, all of the accessories and excessive darkroom procedures control photography more than creativity. Abbott describes a photograph as a selective and potent statement—a serious form of communication, a “means of expression.” To take a meaningful photograph, one must have a trained mind and choose content that relates to the real world. Finally, good photography is documentary.

Over sixty years later, Abbott’s self-aware conversation about the increased use photography and the resulting decline of artistic sensibility still applies to today's culture. I would say pictures have indeed replaced words as a means of communication. Social media is primarily composed of images—all phones have cameras and even cameras have internet connection! The mass distribution of pictures (which are usually edited) requires no selectivity—one can simply upload all 320 photographs of his trip to the zoo to a public site at once. Such photographs, individually, are not exactly what Abbott would consider “a fine photograph.” Though they might be valuable for social purposes, they often lack the discretion and vision “fine photographs” possess. Interestingly, our culture is even more self-conscious and self-making, and chooses photography to share every little detail of contemporary life. 

Surveys and Social Facts-Morgan Kirol

Since reading many passages of Wells’ book and sitting through lectures, the work of Jacob Riis has always resonated with me. His work has a sense of unity as they all share the averted gazes of the people he photographs. It is admiring how fervent Riis was on exploiting the jarring conditions of the poverty and misery in the East Side slums of New York City. It is amazing how much Riis was able to express despite the lack formal aesthetic qualities of his work. His photographs of overcrowded rooms lit by the crude flash of his camera foreshadowed the documentary photographs that would become famous with help of the creation of the FSA. I find it very interesting the extent to which Riis made sure the people he photographed were in the exact positions he wanted instead of the inherent nature of poverty. The people he photographed were cramped, tired, hot, and sweating but revealed no identity. Instead they sat as a blank outline of a group labeled ‘impoverished’. Riis’ work is marveled for its consistency and lack of attention paid toward the camera. My question is how this adds to his work. Wells sheds light on this question when she says, “A history of documentary could be structured around an account of the association between photographer and subject, and of the power relationships that are mediated between them” (Wells 78). As well describes, photographers often picture those in poverty as passive victims, instead of people who are active in trying to survive and make money for their families. After reading this passage, I began to admire this element of Riis’ work. He is not revealing these unfortunate situations begging for the empathy of the viewer, he more tries to reveal what these amazing humans will do just to survive. They stand strong in the face of hardships. Stone faced and averting the gaze of their documentation, these working people do not expect help from anyone. They will do whatever it takes to survive and Riis respects that as you can see throughout his work.

Photography, Birth, and Death-Morgan Kirol

I find it so interesting our class’s reaction to post-mortem photography. I am not sure if it is because of our generational views or lack of experience with death and the physicality of it that we are frightened and disgusted with the idea of photographing the dead. I found it so interesting that Wells addresses that the idea of death has become an increasingly private realm in this modern era. The societal view of photography has shifted more towards a tendency “to accept photographs as reflections of the real as well as to contemporary attitudes towards death”(Wells 201). It is odd to think that photographing the dead was common and the corpses of loved ones were displayed in homes. I also found it very interesting that this practice is still done today but it is seen as shameful and highly private. With the birth of photography, came this inherent need to photograph and portrait our loved ones who had passed away. This was often because this was the only time that they would be photographed as the technology was not nearly as popular as it is now. In modern times, photography is almost fetishized. This obsession with picturing reality over and over at a thousand different filters and angles seems sinful when you think of hearbroken mothers and fathers photographing the lifeless bodies of their toddlers in their best white funeral wear. Their eyes are peacefully shut and they look as though they are lost in a misty dream. As Wells discussed, when the reality TV show America’s Next Top Model attempted to photograph perspective models as corpses in a crime scene, this was seen as ‘extreme, misogynistic objectification’ (Wells 202). Why is this? Why now, is the idea of mimicking a corpse a form of objectification? I feel as though as society exploits more and more of the world around us, society has become even more sensitive to the harshness of reality. Death is a form of “body in transition”(Wells 203). It is just another part of the cycle of life but the idea of picturing it, revealing its “reality” is now seen as obscene, shameful. Society is hypocritical in this sense. We exploit everything but our inevitable end.  

Documentary: New Cultures, New Spaces

The change in documentary photography during the mid 20th century could have been one of the most positive changes to photography in that time. Robert Frank and his book The Americans almost single-handedly transformed how documentary photography was viewed. The Americans took what most people thought was mundane and pulled an enormous amount of meaning out of it. Frank took pictures of things that many people would have never noticed when walking down the street and used it as a commentary on American life in ways that were incredibly funny, but also eye opening and depressing. Something that this article points out that I think is very successful in The Americans is that, in the early 20th century most documentary photographs were taken with the knowledge that a caption or article was going to accompany it so the photograph itself did not have to be exceptionally strong because the article would be doing most of the talking. What changed with the advent of photographers like Robert Frank was the stress on making photographs that could speak for themselves and did not need a caption because everything you needed to know was right there in the frame and adding a caption would almost be a disservice to the photograph. Frank was able to not only able to push documentary photograph as a genre to new heights but also the art of photography itself by making image so strong that they needed no extra explanation.