With an ever expanding repertoire of tools and methods for photo editing, especially in the realm of digital photography, is an image captured in this day and age truly, as the author would put it, dead? Can images take on new lives of their own on a two dimensional plane, being warped, altered or re-purposed at the leisure of the artist or, in the case of images released into the vast expanses of the internet, any individual in the world? Could we consider these images trails of a singular reality derived from the prototype, like a religious icon would have been regarded during certain periods of the byzantine empire, in the context of time, connecting all through their occurrence in relation to the original and those after it? Or does an original image merely create a jumbled grouping of parallel but stationary realities grouped together loosely by subject?
Does a photograph truly capture a moment in an image, or does it capture a representation of a perceived feeling or emotion? In an attempt to identify his personal interest in certain photos, the author categorizes based on whether a photo advenes. Is this adequate or should we consider the importance of mankind's empathetic nature and it's relation to photography as well as the entirety of the art world. Should the author have said the images makes him empathize with the prototype, or the artist or even the conveyed emotions of the images spectrum (color or black and white)?
In chapter 20, does the author place to much importance on the serendipitous nature of photos? While he obviously seems to prefer purely situational photos, does he in fact ignore the entirety of staged and studio photography (which was the sole form of the medium when it first began)?
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Mike's reading questions
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2. I think that it is very possible for a photograph to capture a specific moment in time. A moment that is very real and sometimes not the most pleasant or pleasing to the eye, but a very real image with real emotion that is caught in that specific moment forever. However, I do think that many people try to achieve this natural, realistic look through posing people, but I just do not think it happens that way. I just recently went to the Baltimore Museum of Art and they currently have a photography exhibit called "Seeing Now." It is a fantastic exhibit where there are some very raw, harsh photographs, but they capture and define the emotions of the particular moment. There were some posed/staged and well thought out photos that were able to state the authors message, but I think this is a very hard thing to achieve without seeming fake or "cheesy." Anyone interested in photography should definitely visit this exhibit!
ReplyDeleteI agree with Jordan, I think it's possible for a photo to capture a moment and emotion but more often than not the amateur photographers are looking for "pretty", which is usually contrived.
ReplyDeletePhotography is a difficult medium to work with because it has become this universal tool for anyone to use. Too often people pick up a camera and think they are a photographer because they stumble upon and interesting composition or take a pretty picture. I think it's the ability to find this real emotion and naturalness in the world that makes the photographer not the camera.
1. I think you have a great point here. Now that we have tools, especially photoshop, photos can be changed in an infinite number of ways. However, there is still something so stationary about the reality captured in the original image. Any thing that is changed in the original image through methods such as computer programs is no longer depicting a reality, but an imagined/created "reality."
ReplyDelete3. I think that these two types of photography are so very different, but both just as important as the other. While a photo can capture a particular environment, situation, etc., and there is beauty in that, there is also something magnificent about being able to either capture a personality or an idea in a contrived photo. This is a different form of art in itself that should not be forgotten or devalued.
1. I think it is most certainly not a dead photograph in the modern world of photoshop. Just like a painting can be altered to the painters desire a photograph can so now. But then again it could be altered before, there was quite a bit of photo manipulation that could be done in the dark room.
ReplyDelete3. Even the most perfectly staged and lighted photograph is still at the mercy of the moment, in every second of every minute something is technically and subtly different. The photographers weight can shift, the dust in the air can settle, the angle of a smile can shift. I think even then things are up to chance, they are just less so.
2. I believe a photograph represents an exact moment in time, but also can represent a feeling or emotion at that time, or a feeling created through the photograph itself. I do agree with Jess, that among most photographers it is used to capture the moment of a memory or of "pretty" image.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Jess that photography is a hard art to judge based on the ability for anyone to pick up a camera. I believe a truly good photograph depends on more then a good composition, but the photographer's thoughts and ideas behind the piece. Do you think there is a difference in being a good photographer and being a good artist? And what does it take for a good photographer to be an artist? Is that why in the article Barthes doesn't see himself as a photographer?
ReplyDelete3) Well, it's the same for portrait paintings and abstract paintings, is it not? Portrait paintings still hold their value despite being essentially the first photographs. In our art history classes, we're taught to examine them and analyze their technique more than their message. But we still discover the artist in every painting, and appreciate how they captured an emotion despite it being "just" a portrait. The same holds true for candid versus staged photographs. Staged can still capture the human condition; it's all in the interpretation.
ReplyDelete