last one.

I liked Amanda Wojick’s presentation about sculpture this week because she took a different approach to introducing the material. By showcasing the work of nine women throughout the 20^th century, Amanda really chronicled the history and progress of sculpture. An integral theme she mentioned was the use of abstraction in the different pieces and the extent to which each artist chose to utilize it. The less abstract, the closer it is to a representation of something. Among the works of the artists presented, I found that most of them were of a more abstract nature. When I think of representational sculpture I think of statues commemorating important people: literal depiction. Amanda also talked about the variety of different materials that sculptors have access to. I thought this was an interesting point because when you think about other art forms like painting or drawing, there are a couple of different materials at most to work with but sculpture really allows for a variety of different substances. The most common materials were stone, metal, ceramic and wood but Amanda showed that her work was made mostly of paper mâché and showed us two other artists that use different materials. Petah Coyne used pearls, silk, wax and ribbons to create her sculpture installations while Tara Donovan used Styrofoam cups and straws. I never realized the extent of materials that could make up a sculpture. It’s totally outside of the ancient, conventional view of sculptures made from stone, metal or ceramic. For this reason, I could see myself enjoying working with this medium. The materials are limitless. There is no block to chisel at, unless you want to. The women Amanda talked about really radicalized the way I thought about sculpture and made me think about it in a different way. Somehow it gives me hope that somebody like me could be artistic through a strong reliance of innovation and creativity rather than formal skill. It was no secret that all of the artists Amanda chose to show were women. In some ways, I understand where she was coming from but on the other hand, I think it the presentation could have been more balanced if a few male artists were featured. Women artists are very powerful because historically, women have often been treated like second-class citizens, controlled by men and stifled creatively. The movement of women artists is thus very important because it shows how they have overcome oppression so on the one hand it is important to incorporate women sculptors but is maybe skewing the bigger picture of sculpture as a whole by removing men from the picture. Either way, sculpture is now an art form I will forever think of in a different way. Just thinking about the idea that just about any material could make a sculpture makes me want to create something. It’s inspiring.

Through the Art21 videos, Louise Bourgeois seemed like a really cool old lady. I would be so proud to be related to her. Her art expresses conflicts and disturbances she faced as a child. She says that a work of art doesn’t have to be explained, which I would disagree with, but only on an arbitrary level, because sometimes I don’t want to take the time to figure out a meaning. In reality, she is right because a piece should evoke different emotions among different people and an explanation would rob people of their own creative devices. Her outdoor installation with the hands was great. Not only did I find it to be aesthetically pleasing, but how she talks about it is very sweet. She talks about how the different sized hands are holding one another and how that speaks about help and helplessness. One thing she said that I thought was interesting was that the little hands are like the helplessness of a child and how they are not arrogant or ashamed at their helplessness. Because her work is autobiographical, I thought her installation was very poignant because it reflects how she must have felt as a child.

The reading “Just Looking” was kind of eye opening. James Elkins talks about the concept of vision and seeing, but concludes it to be much more than just one of the five senses. At first he introduces seeing as something we do automatically in a passive unthinking way. What I thought was interesting was how he compared “just looking,” to shopping. He talked about how when shoppers are approached by the salespeople most people just respond that they are “just looking.” We all do it. I do it. And when I worked in retail people used to say that to me all the time. But the truth is, we’re never really “just looking.” He later likens the process of shopping to a hunter prey relationship where the positions are interchangeable so you can go hunting for an object, or the salesperson can hunt and trap you into their web. So Elkins says that when we say we’re “just looking,” we really mean we’re just searching. I think this is so true because, even when I don’t plan on buying anything or go into a store knowing it’s too expensive I still search and keep my “eye out” for something on sale, a certain something that fits my criteria of cool but is also in my price range. If I don’t find that one thing, my searching ends that store and I go on to another to do the same thing. We may think we’re all “just looking,” but we all have constant unconscious desires that are longing to be fulfilled. Another point he made expanded on his further notion of “just looking” as a passive action and said that there really is no such thing. Elkins addresses “just looking” from a much bigger perspective now and moves away from the shopping comparison and talks about how even when we are least interested we remain on the prowl. We are “always looking out, looking for, even just looking around” (21). This is so true. A glance doesn’t come without a purpose. As a passionate writer, I like how Elkins say when he is stuck or searching for words he looks outside at a picturesque scene to gain inspiration. I often find myself doing that, although I usually just look all around as if I’m asking the room I’m in to please help me. We don’t look without purpose is what Elkins is really trying to say and I think that’s something people overlook.

Richard Serra was totally different from any of the artists presented in week 9. I like that kind of contrast because it shows how diverse the art form really is. Serra’s installations are huge. I feel like I would be overwhelmed if I ever came face to face with his sculptures. He says he never starts with an image or a drawing but usually works off of a model. But later in his profile on Art21 they show him drawing his sculptures. So he doesn’t start with a drawing, but he ends with one? He has a very interesting process and I wonder if he gets his artistic rocks off through the challenge of the scale of his work rather than the meaning because he says there is no metaphorical meaning but rather a relationship of the elements. Serra is very matter-of-fact but I sense that he’s got some sort of meaning behind his installations.

One connection between Amanda’s presentation and the reading that I noticed was University of Oregon graduate, Theresa Sterner’s sculpture of doors on campus. She saw elevated, closed doors that led to a mechanical room with slats that you could peer into and reproduced the doors out of cardboard. They were strewn on the ground in front of the real doors looking forlorn and beaten up. I thought this concept played with the idea of sight and “just looking.” The original doors evoke a curiosity to go see what is inside and her reproduction of them highlights that. It goes back to Elkins’ whole idea that we are never “just looking.” Theresa looked in those doors, because she was curious. What resulted from what she saw was art. She was looking for inspiration and material to work with. Beyond why Theresa looked, I might have walked by there and looked in to see if there was an attractive handy man fixing something in there. I would have told myself I was “just looking” to see what was inside but it would have been a lie. The work of Louise Bourgeois and Richard Serra is vastly different but they both play with the idea of scale which affects how they are viewed. Bourgeois’ black marble hand installation is set in a garden in Chicago. She talks about how the space is surrounded by huge buildings but her work is not meant to compete or challenge that. It is discrete and subdued, something you have to really look for it literally. You’ve also got to take into account what it means for it to be on a small scale. The hands are abstract because they aren’t attached to anything but they are molds of real hands so they’re representational in that respect, which connects with Amanda’s presentation about the differences between the two. So you’ve got to question why the hands are no bigger and no smaller and I think that deals with those two themes. Richard Serra on the other hand makes huge installations that seen very easily. However, when I was watching the video I noticed art goers who walked inside the spirals were constantly looking around, trying to place themselves. Serra talks about this, about how such a massive object with hardly any resemblance to everyday objects, affects people who are inside of it. Naturally, they look around trying to make sense of it but everywhere you look in this installation is the same stretch of steel. I thought it was interesting how Elkins says we are always looking for a purpose and the purpose of these people looking at Serra’s work is to try and understand it. Looking at Serra’s massive work, I remembered Rachel Whiteread and the scale of her work, most notably, the house she casted. Here are two artists who have engaged in physically huge undertakings in the name of art, yet their end products are greatly different. I think Whiteread’s work definitely has metaphorical meaning while Serra claims his does not. Whiteread works with domestic everyday objects, while Serra’s work couldn’t be farther from anything recognizable, so again there’s the idea of representation and abstraction that show up. In the Art21 video there are some scenes of Serra, furiously drawing his sculptures. I thought this was a little odd because he said he never starts with drawing but it is somewhat ironic that he ends with it. So he makes abstract sculptures but then creates a representational form of them by literally drawing them. I thought that was interesting. When he comments on his drawings he says he wants to keep his eye and hand in sync and that the eye is a muscle so if you exercise this muscle by drawing you can sharpen your vision, sight and the way you look at things. Obviously, this goes back to the “Just Looking,” reading but further expands on the reading by saying you can in a sense hone the way you look at things. 

A classic example of representational sculpture.

friday february 25.

Anya’s presentation was yet another interesting perspective into the world of art. There were rings and brooches, jeweled shoes and meat floors and teapots in boxes. Aside from the variety of actual art pieces and installations, Anya categorized these very different types of works into more manageable sections that helped me better understand the purpose and dynamic of each work. One category consisted of handmade reproductions of original copies. I thought the sink by Robert Gober was very realistic and Anya further explained because of the way it was produced it really shapes how you view or interpret the object. Without careful scrutiny I would have believed this to be just a manufactured object which would have rendered it basically meaningless. On the other because it was made as an art form and lacks the utilitarian parts of a real sink it becomes basically useless for a strict physical purpose. So you’ve got this juxtaposition of a manufactured object for consumer use but doesn’t really have much artistic value or meaning and then there’s the same type of object but one-of-a-kind and it doesn’t allow you to wash your hands or clean dishes but what it does let you do is be analytical, artistic and creative to try and decipher what it represents. I thought Wim Delvoye’s marble floor meat installations were bizarre but remarkable. The intricacy and detail was magnificent. Although, the meat inevitably rots, decomposes and reeks. The meat was trying to imitate a material that is very enduring and even though it has the same beautiful patterns it eventually is destroyed. The second category of production Anya introduced to us was re-production. Gijs Bakker’s historical revision of a very ornate, period necklace was one such re-production. I saw the re-production first and it was very stiff, two-dimensional and cheap looking. I thought the original was gorgeous and then I noticed that the re-production was exactly the same as the original but with no depth and plastic lamination. I thought this re-creation was an innovative take on an expensive piece of jewelry that a royal would have worn at one point. The artist has taken something very rare and made it very accessible. Of course, his re-production doesn’t look entirely functional or fashionable for that matter. But the concept for the piece is very interesting and is almost entirely opposite of Gober’s sink. While Gober explored how to create one individual, unique piece based on a line of objects that is uniform, Bakker created something you can reproduce easily and uniformly flawless inspired by one individual unique piece.

I found John Feodorov to be what I perceive as a “typical artist.” Of course, this class has opened my eyes to a variety of different artists and methods but I haven’t entirely shaken my old preconceived notions. His cynicism and skepticism about corporate America, mass production, spirituality and environmental issues was apparent in the work on ART21. Taking on these conventional ideas is somewhat unoriginal so that’s why I may have pegged him as a typical artist but Feodorov goes about it an innovative way. His Native American heritage, as well as his experience growing up in a California suburb, plays a large part in is work and helps distinguish his demeanor from other artists who address these same concepts. He talked about how the “Office Deity” was “about the exploitation and inevitable destruction of the earth for the ends of the corporation.” What he said was the inspiration for the piece was a statement by a Native American author who said that corporations were becoming the new manifestation of the tribe. Feodorov thought this to be a very thought provoking claim and said it got him thinking about the dynamic and relationships within corporations with respect to a hierarchy such as a spiritual, religious or Native American one. I found it ironic that the office paintings were actually going to be hung in offices. It came across as somewhat offensive to me because Feodorov is essentially mocking their jobs but then I thought that the office workers would probably find it amusing. Feodorov made the CEO a godlike figure and showed how his minions were like angels which conveys a sense of acknowledgement for the nonexecutives and “little people” who run the show for their almighty leader who just sits on his chair and smokes a stogie. I thought it was interesting that Feodorov said he isn’t a spiritual person but it is inherent to the work he does. It’s a central concept to his pieces even though he doesn’t revere spirituality as a devout Catholic might. Actually, it’s quite the opposite because Feodorov seeks to explore spirituality and questions it rather than accepting it. Even though it’s not a part of his everyday life, he doesn’t let this concept go and examines spirituality in a variety of outlets. I admire his perseverance of the exploration regarding this topic considering his lifestyle isn’t influenced by spirituality. Through surveying his work, reading the interviews and watching the videos I found that Feodorov’s work greatly revolves around concepts of spirituality and while some of them may be comical or critical of modern culture, the fact that he is delving into these issues shows that he is trying to thoughtfully trying to understand higher powers, the cosmos and the like. It takes a sense of maturity to continually work through a puzzling question on your own terms rather than accept the common answer or reject it as impossible and I think that is what John Feodorov is essentially trying to do.

I wasn’t quite sure how to relate a presentation regarding metalsmithing and jewelry to an artist who paints and makes figurines. But then I realized that it’s not the medium, it’s the message. Both Anya’s presentation and Feodorov’s work address issues surrounding mass production and subsequent consumerism. In Anya’s presentation there were examples of artists who were playing with the idea of mass production without being totally uniform. Roxy Paine was one artist who created a machine called a Painting Manufacture Unit that was programmed mechanically produce paintings. It was odd to see a machine making something artistic because it’s devoid of emotion and feeling. The actual composition of the painting doesn’t have much artistic merit to me, not to mention that it’s nothing more than globs of white paint. However, in context this piece certainly has a deeper meaning because of the way it was produced. Painting is an esteemed, unique art form and because these pieces are coming from a machine, I think that has some very strong implications on what that says about mass production. The Painting Manufacturing Unit could produce hundreds of paintings and could go on to replace the making of all future paintings. Clearly this would be an abomination to the art world if it were to happen because as I said earlier, machines don’t have feeling or meaning. There’s this idea of sacredness of hand painting that’s being mocked by the threat of mass production. But there’s really no threat at all because the art community and mass production are polar opposites—which is why there’s humor in this piece and all other pieces that contrast are with mass production. This relates to John Feodorov’s Totem Teddies because he uses a humorous object (a bear) to imitate Native American spirits. He says that the Totem Teddies explore the issues of commercializing spirituality and how these teddy bears are turned in to powerful totem symbols because of their traditional feathers and packaged “Native American” look. This project takes a common, mass produced children’s toy that is seen as a jovial and harmless and turns it in to a feared deity. Again, there is this relationship with taking one product not central to art and recontextualizing it to something else. The PMU takes a machine and tries to imitate artists while Feodorov uses teddy bears to imitate divine spirits. They both are exploring the boundaries of consumer products and how they relate, or are unrelated.

http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2008/112_0807_ford_model_t_100_year_celebration/photo_02.html

week 7

I feel so ignorant whenever a new guest speaker comes to present to our class. Art and environment? Never really thought about it. But through Karla’s presentation, I realized that art and environment are closely related and in some cases, the same. In the Romantic Era, beautiful  environmental landscapes made very popular paintings. People even went to nature destinations, brought “cloud lenses” to frame a particular place and gazed through it as if it was a physical work of art. Karla asked us if humans are different from nature or the same. It’s obvious we observe and interact with nature but I came to the conclusion she was suggesting we were basically opposites. But later Karla showed us some ways in which artists have attempted to become a part of nature like the artist who painted herself to camouflage in with a tree or the hand sculpture that remained attached to a tree so long it made an indentation. Culture is what largely defines the human, manmade aspect and these artists try and make a relationship out of nature and culture. An interesting quote Karla showed us was: “If culture is always with us when we are in nature, is nature always with us when we’re in culture?” This question is something to think about not only for artistic purposes, but in life at large. Nature has a lot to do physically with objects we interact with everyday. Whether directly, or indirectly nature is prevalent in culture. I think because nature literally surrounds culture it has influence, even if it is inadvertently. Karla transitioned to Modernism and pointed out an interesting connection between the artistic movement and architectural design. She said architects were influenced by the clean, perfectionist image of a boxy, sterile room and then mentioned that some elementary schools were based off this idea. And while mine wasn’t, some classrooms in my high school were—four stark, white, bare walls. It was so ominous and I hated it. Karla said that human beings were not meant to inhabit boring rooms which relates to how nature is never this “perfect” image.

To summarize Roland Barthes “The Death of the Author,” I would say he feels that in order for a reader to be able to search for multiple meanings, have a truly analytical, self-propelled experience, there must be no trace of the author for the reader to be aware of because it would influence the meaning of the text to one end. He has a good point. I never read up on the author before I read a novel, poem or essay unless it is provided for me. Often times it is not and I end up coming up with vastly different conclusions that what the teacher has because she knows the “right” conclusions to draw based on her knowledge of the author’s history and personal life. The same concept can be applied to art. If you don’t have context or a history of the artist, there are myriad of ways to analyze it. In a sense, by remaining “dead,” the author or artist lets the reader or viewer become the creative one because they have control over the meaning of what they’re seeing. It’s kind of powerful what Barthes is suggesting.

Kiki Smith is truly one of a kind. I read her interviews but it is not the same as seeing her in person and you can kind of get a sense of her eccentricities. She is a very interesting person and artist who works with sculptures and printmaking. The art21 video showed her and her team creating miniature sculptures of saints that she was inspired to make from nurses handing out tissues at Baptist funeral. While she was working on a sculpture, the arm broke off and everyone gasped but she shrugged it off like it wasn’t a big deal and said “it’s fine,” and kept going. She also talked about how even if she’s working on a piece that she feels might be embarrassing or pointless she’ll keep going because it will evolve into something. I think in these two instances she shows great faith and endurance. She was raised Catholic, and whether or not her persistence has anything to do with her religious ties it is a great characteristic to retain. Her parents also always pleaded her to trust her intuition so it’s inspiring to see that she’s taken their advice and even when she’s unsure about something she sticks with it and it ends up being something incredible.

When Karla was talking about Romantic paintings she used a quote that said, “Landscape paintings breed landscape paintings.” This relates to Barthes “The Death of the Author” because the quote suggests that there is no originality, only a combination of past work. Barthes puts it like this: “We know now that a text is not a line of words releasing a single theological meaning but a multidimensional space in which a verity of writings, none of them original, blend and clash.” In the case of the quote Karla showed us, the “text” is the painting and the “multidimensional space” refers to a variety of past art. From Barthes perspective, Romanticism is the death of the author. After Romanticism, Modernism emerged, which is very original and “author-like.” This is ironic because from his point of view and from common logic, the author should be alive before he is dead. From learning about Kiki Smith, I noticed she had some “author-like” tendencies. She talked about she was in a sculpting competition but she “decided she didn’t want to make public sculpture that was of other people’s agendas. I couldn’t do that. I can only do things that come from my necessity.” She ended up creating sculptures of witches because there aren’t any commemoratives for them anywhere. It’s a very original idea. So you’ve got this idea of being an author and then I thought that it’s kind of authoritative. Taking matters into your own hands, being controlling, which is exactly what an author is—an omniscient creator. Kiki made these witch sculptures and I thought well that’s neat. But later she described her childhood as the Addams Family. She and her sisters were looked at as strange and were teased as witches and there was this sense of morbidity throughout her household. After learning the identity of the “author” I came to understand her witch sculptures more. Barthes thinks of the author as a selfish person because it reserves the meaning a text to the identity of the author but Kiki said that she would rather have an open ended meaning, one for her and multiple meanings for other people. She revolutionizes the divide between the author and the reader and makes it a worthwhile experience for both parties.  I don’t think in this case, learning about her past experience with oddities and witches, really inhibited my analysis, but actually made it stronger.

These stacked rocks are all over the place in Ashland, OR

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vwmang/3946995060/

digital arts

Digital arts has a promising future, but it also has some unfortunate problems as John Parker explained to us during his presentation. John talked about this medium in terms of technology, artistic value and effect on humanity. His introduction to digital arts was pretty broad and included everyday technology like cell phones and computers. But John made sure to expose the sometime problematic effects the digital arts can have on its creators and consumers.

John did not only tell us about problems that the digital arts cause, but offered innovative ways to combat these pitfalls.  Among the problems he raised, I thought the two most interesting ones were the zombie effect and how to find the art in digital media. Most people experience the zombie effect when they are glued to their cell phone, TV or computer. It happens every day to non-digital artists so I can imagine how removed professionals can feel. This technological divide that separates human interaction and virtual communication has become mainstream in our society but John really stressed that you have to be aware of this. He also talked about being aware of the history of digital arts and showed us one of the first computers then juxtaposed it with a smart phone. I was really impressed he took in to account and shared with us this idea of being aware. The other problem that I thought was current and applicable to society was how to find the art in digital arts. This can sometimes be tough because there is a lot of technology involved but there was one particular project John showed us that I thought was meaningful, beautiful and had great depth. The project is called “I want you to want me,” and was about compiling data from online dating sites and then using that data to create a master of different phrases and words that people used to describe himself. They used demographics like age and gender to determine the color and hue of their balloon; a 60-year-old woman would have a dark pink balloon while a 20-year-old man would have a light blue balloon. The way in which they put this information together was very eloquent and representative of humanity. The part I liked the best was when all the balloons came together to form a double helix.

Even though our topic for this week was digital arts I found David Byrne’s piano installation to be almost the antithesis of digital arts. Because he was in the music industry and production has gone almost exclusively digital it gives me the sense he’s trying to essentially do the opposite. He talks about how this instrument is a couple hundred years old so there is this obvious contrast between past and present. Furthermore, the scale of this installation is the scope of an entire building whereas digital songs and productions have become a tabletop operation. The vastness of the installation adds to its archaic perception and challenges the modern acceptance of digital productions.

When I explored the links to Paul Pfeiffer, not only was I touched and amazed by his work but he as a person had this sort of warmth that I found comforting. He seemed like a joyful person and wasn’t afraid to hide feeling, however subtle it was. I’m a sports fan so I found his work in those arenas very interesting. I like how he described his experience filming the Spurs about how he went to the game to get his own footage but ended up seeing all of the other things that go on at a basketball game other than the actual game. There’s the mascot, the fans and then he became fascinated with the professional cameramen. The boxing fight is what was the most incredible. The final product of the two “ghosts” fighting each other was a sight to see but thinking about how much time and effort went in to the production and recreation of the missing pieces is mind-boggling. Beyond the scope of being cool, I think Pfeiffer’s work addresses some important issues. He often removes the most important piece of the action but sometimes he just makes a subtle erasure. In terms of the big erasures, whatever he removes is usually a critical part of the video and it makes me wonder what the event would be had this person not actually been there. When you look at the boxing match, if you remove the fighters you’ve got nothing to watch, there would be no crowd, no employees, no bets and certainly no money so for me his work puts a lot of what ifs in my head and provokes what the implications would be had it actually been reality.

Janet Cardiff’s work was somewhat eerie to me. I do like her concept of having sound simulations that are meant to be creepily realistic in particular setting and I would love to experience that first hand but there’s something unsettling about it as well. The “Killing Machine” for example aims to explore the societal influence on killing and torture that I think speaks for capital punishment. The installation almost has a satirical attitude. The dental chair that seats a “patient” is covered in fur while a disco ball hangs from above. There are also TVs around casting a glow but I think it can be interpreted as media influence on this issue. While this is a big topic to try and divulge and is very important there is that creeped out factor that unfolds from watching Polly Pocket’s cracked out torture chamber attack someone.

In all of the media I’ve seen this week, there are a couple of similarities I’ve been able to extrapolate. One of them has to do with absence. John talked about how digital arts can be very consuming for both the consumer and producer which can create this “zombiefied” state of mind where there really isn’t anything going on up there. As a result of being glued in to the medium, you can compromise physical communication and create an absence of human interaction. This relates to Pfeiffer’s work because he physically removes vital pieces of events that leave a void. The absence of whatever he removed is deliberate and becomes the meaning of many of his works. His concepts are built upon the idea of absence. Janet Cardiff’s creations of events are filled with sound, props and all physical elements to make a scene be real—except people. Her installation “Opera for a Small Room,” features a small room (go figure) with music exuding out from it and the audience is not allowed in.  There is the sound of a person bustling inside but once again there is no actual person. However, I think the fact the viewers cannot go inside this particular installation speaks to the absence of involvement and interactivity that relates to how much of the public isn’t connected with music production. We may listen to it and we may love it but we can’t really get a good view of where it came from. To see this piece you have to look through windows and cracks, never really getting the full picture even though you see a shadow moving around. It just explains how as a society we hunger for information about things we’re interested but we may not be able to get it so it creates an absence of knowledge.  Finally, David Byrne’s installation lacks modern technology. The absence of an ultra-sophisticated sound system compels his piece to address why he did this and as I said earlier I think it works to contrast primitive to digital. It ends up making such a bigger statement than synthesizers could produce because it is out of touch with contemporary society.

I also found that between John and Paul they both found making digital art somewhat meditative. John was outwardly concerned with the effects too much technology can have but admitted there was a relaxing quality about coding and doing something sort of monotonous. Paul explicitly said he found even tedious work to be meditative.

I chose Avatar because it is a perfect example of digital arts being used in a mainstream setting for purely commercial purposes with intent to make a lot of money.

fauxtography

In comparison to previous presenters, I was left somewhat confused after Craig’s lecture. I was expecting a background, the importance of photography, what constitutes as photography and why and other general comments. It wasn’t until Ty explained Craig’s nature of information overload that I finally understood his method. He showed a wide variety of different photographs—old and new and even some of his own work. I really enjoyed the work by Tony Mendoza. I loved his flower album because of the colors and angles. I also like the album that featured his dog. As a hobbyist photographer I enjoy and have worked with that low perception of the flowers and I also have many, many photos of my dog. It’s just something that personally resonated with me. I also liked Winston Link’s work. Link focused on photos of trains but it was amazing how different they could all look even though they are essentially all the same thing. What I think I most enjoyed was Craig’s own work. He showed us some of his newest work from his fictional photography album which was awesome. I liked the idea of him taking a relatively boring scene and putting something interesting on it. In particular, there was a picture of an old trailer half in a ditch and he used Photoshop to put an image of a ballerina on it. The trailer was old and rusty but the ballerina image on it reminded me of a traveling circus. It was, as Ty says, “playful.”

Errol Morris’ blog entry “Photography as a Weapon” was news to me. I’m not sure where I was in the world when this controversy exploded but this was the first time I’ve heard of it. The blog talks about logistics like how and why it happened but also delves into the greater abyss of digital manipulation on a grand scale and how and why that happens. They talk about the Loch Ness monster and attribute low resolution photos to the so-called “legitimacy” of the monster. However, with the advent and prevalence of high resolution photography it can become clearer to identify manipulation. The idea of manipulation and mass foolery isn’t new however. The blog made a good point that all the way back to propaganda and forged Hitler papers. John Heartfield, along with several others, created anti-Nazi posters incorporating photos and ironic text to spread the message of the inhumanity the Third Reich was imposing and was trying to illustrate that” we should be suspicious of what we see and what we read — of what we are told.” The second feature artist was Alfredo Jaar who had some solemn pieces among his work. Watching his interview gave me the impression that he was not only a very compassionate, but passionate man. He said when he learned of the horror happening in Rwanda “I have to go. I have to go. So I went,” just like it was that simple and like he knew without a doubt he must do something to expose their situation. Jaar talked about how his imagination starts working after he does research or an event happens, specifically a tragedy. This got me thinking about the creative process and how real-life events are sometimes the most fruitful sources of inspiration. He also mention how he created 26 pieces for Rwanda but none of them worked but he didn’t give up and kept trying. Some things in life may just be too horrific to capture in a single moment. Even though Jaar chronicles some dark places and depressing events, he also realizes the importance of incorporating beauty because that’s also a part of life.

Through all of the material I’ve encountered this week there were a lot of different perspectives, motives and facets that encompassed photography. I love this medium because visual imagery resonates with many people so immensely including myself. We talked about how most people are inclined to accept photos as real and true but after looking at “Photography as a Weapon,” and some of Craig’s “fictional” work I guess we should be more thoughtful about what we believe. Ty was telling us that Craig uses his trials as a learning process and continues to plow through until he gets it right which is also what Alfredo Jaar believed through his attempts to capture the distress in Rwanda. Twenty-six times he tried to get it right and was relentless. Looking at Craig’s photos I get a sense of light-heartedness and fun like the photo with the added in text “astronomy,” “stars,” “planets,” and the picture that said “planetarium.” It was just fun. Although the blog focused primarily on a serious subject matter dealing with missiles and international safety, it also showed some spoofs that people created by doctoring the photo which is also fun. Godzilla was my favorite. Alfredo Jaar’s work was pretty serious because of the magnitude of the tragedies he covered but I think his spirit is fun and light-hearted. His willingness to go spread the news of what’s happening in a sometimes disturbing way in such a way that it makes an impact upon others is beautiful in itself. 

Kat Koury