what is the relationship between painting and photography. How dod we get from one to the next? the evolution has produced very different kinds of image production and consumption, and we do not know enough about how we got from one to another. thinking about paintings in relation to photographs, what is the connection, have photographs replaced painting? if that is true then it deserves unpacking because they are not the same even if they occupy a similar place/role. thinking about times when people’s lives were dominated by religion and methods of subverting this power was very subtle. it had to be. the penalty was terrible. the danger and risk involved is of the sort we cannot imagine.
what do we think about Apple? providing us the tools to make our “paintings” and images. What is Apple’s role in supplying us with all these tools. Are they revolutionary tools? Democratizing? Does using them actually undermine potential forms and actions? Apple is definitely not neutral in this conversation.
____________________
I really like what is being talking about in the Azoulay article. It makes more sense to think of what goes down during protests and uprisings are not just stale gestures that come about through citizens performing revolution, but there is this semiotics and code of language. it makes sense also to think about photography as a way of “writing” down those exchanges.
Advait:
The Azoulay piece, for me, seemed to tie together a lot of the other readings we’ve had so far (and Nupur’s points in class this afternoon, re: codified vocabularies of space, et cetera). I think the notion of re-enactments is absolutely essential to understanding the effect that observation has upon the subject. Especially whilst watching The Act of Killing, I often wondered to what extent the men were simply acting for the camera (most succinctly when Herman, who found himself mostly, distressingly infantilised by the filmmaker, beat upon a drum kit with abandon for about fifteen seconds). As counterpoint, I wonder if, given the (quasi-)panopticon of modern society, we are used to having cameras trained upon us (or at the very least would “know” what to do if they were pointed at us). Cramerotti also mentioned the "prosumer" status of the Web-user; I wonder if this would extend to a commingling of subject/object relations (that is, the user is both viewing and being viewed, and so understands what role they must occupy as both audience and actor)?
Alex:
Cramerotti talks about self documentation, in relation to art, from the 1960s and 2970s. A few pages earlier, he talks about how art and literature movements came to define a new class in society. With that in mind, I wonder how he feels about how self documentation has expanded, not just with the advent of social media allowing for distribution of any taken images, but even with just the broadening of the target customer segments by camera-producing companies to reach more amateurs. It documents art, performances, events, daily life, anything. My dad still has photographs of crude drawings of flowers from my childhood, and tapes with videos of my dance recitals. But, then again, how does the dispersion of art change value and perception? So many people I know (given the art school bias) upload photos and instagrams of art in museums and their own art, in progress or finished. Does it dilute the importance of each individula, or, looking at it from a statistical point of view, does having more data through this documentation allow us to amass a truer, more accurate picture of art on the whole? In photography that depicts art, such as performance art, is that photo a separate piece of art to be considered, given that it undoubtedly has its own aesthetic properties and inherent meaning and value?
Caroline:
Azoulay's article demonstrates the important civic role of documentation and photography. It brings hope in the sense that it places media at the center of the development of a new " rich" language of expression for the revolution. I was particularly struck by his discussion on iconography: sure, icons are important drivers for change, but what are the limits of this device? By bringing up the example of iconized -- and therefore dehumanized-- women, Azoulay pinpoints the possible danger of our over-reliance on symbolic and often simplistic images. With the modern ease of self-documentation, this iconization is also now very much bleeding from the public realm to the private realm. Previously belonging only to societal movements (either of unification or of disruption), the idea of the " iconic" is becoming more and more personal: if we all can make our own photos and distribute our image freely, it seems logical that we can all become icons. Or can we? I don't think there will necessarily be a dilution of the power of the image, but I do think some new, unexpected devices will emerge from this conflict…
Alex:
Cramerotti talks about self documentation, in relation to art, from the 1960s and 2970s. A few pages earlier, he talks about how art and literature movements came to define a new class in society. With that in mind, I wonder how he feels about how self documentation has expanded, not just with the advent of social media allowing for distribution of any taken images, but even with just the broadening of the target customer segments by camera-producing companies to reach more amateurs. It documents art, performances, events, daily life, anything. My dad still has photographs of crude drawings of flowers from my childhood, and tapes with videos of my dance recitals. But, then again, how does the dispersion of art change value and perception? So many people I know (given the art school bias) upload photos and instagrams of art in museums and their own art, in progress or finished. Does it dilute the importance of each individula, or, looking at it from a statistical point of view, does having more data through this documentation allow us to amass a truer, more accurate picture of art on the whole? In photography that depicts art, such as performance art, is that photo a separate piece of art to be considered, given that it undoubtedly has its own aesthetic properties and inherent meaning and value?
Caroline:
Azoulay's article demonstrates the important civic role of documentation and photography. It brings hope in the sense that it places media at the center of the development of a new " rich" language of expression for the revolution. I was particularly struck by his discussion on iconography: sure, icons are important drivers for change, but what are the limits of this device? By bringing up the example of iconized -- and therefore dehumanized-- women, Azoulay pinpoints the possible danger of our over-reliance on symbolic and often simplistic images. With the modern ease of self-documentation, this iconization is also now very much bleeding from the public realm to the private realm. Previously belonging only to societal movements (either of unification or of disruption), the idea of the " iconic" is becoming more and more personal: if we all can make our own photos and distribute our image freely, it seems logical that we can all become icons. Or can we? I don't think there will necessarily be a dilution of the power of the image, but I do think some new, unexpected devices will emerge from this conflict…
No comments:
Post a Comment