"Nonart is whatever has not yet been accepted as art but has caught an artist's attention with the possibility in mind."
"Art art's greatest challenge, in other words, has come from within its own heritage, from a hyperconsiousness about itself and its every-day surroundings. Art art has served as an instructional transition to its own elimination by life."
This was a pretty lengthy read. The first section is the one that resonates the most to me. Viewing things as nonart is something weird for me. I have always imaged myself an artist creating art in a new and intuitive way. So what is the real definition of new?
I am very interested by his notion of play and art. Experimentation is what keeps me interested in being an artist. Without it, it would be like work. "Serious practicalities, competition, money, and other sobering considerations get int he way... the result is not play; it is work." Why does it have to be categorized as play though? Why cant it just be another way to art? Why does art have to fit the mold of being art? Why cant it just be creation? All to often, I get the question, how did you think of that? Well it is through research and wanting to find something else to interest my time. It is nothing special or overly unique. It is just the unnerving desire to keep moving and experimenting. I feel alot of people view my work as nonart and I'm OK with that.
Showing posts with label Reading Responses. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reading Responses. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
In Defense of the Poor Image- Hito Steyerl
"The poor image thus constructs anonymous global networks just as it creates a shared history. It builds alliances as it travels, provokes translation or mistranslation, and creates new publics and debates. By losing its visual substance it recovers some of its political punch and creates a new aura around it. This aura is no longer based on the permanence of the 'original,' but on the transience of the copy."
Regardless of whether and image is poor technically or conceptually it will hold effect on someone somewhere that has viewed the image. I like how in this writing it makes us question the real relevance of the importance of an image. Most do not question what they see in the media. Especially, if it is outside of the tabloids and on the front of the newspapers. It is through these images and translation of these images that is creating the society we have. Especially, politically. With the rise of the digital media we have to question the permanence and if the image is "poor" or not. Again, whether the image is technically or conceptually correct, it still can cause ripples.
"These works have become travelers in a digital no-man's land, constantly shifting their resolution and format speed and media, sometimes even losing names and credits along the way." Imagine what an image is when you finally get to view it?
Camera Lucida- Roland Barthes
This man is pretty dang grouchy. The way he views photography and its practice with these excerpts is very negative in my opinion. He has some really great redeemable quotes but the overall vibe of this writing was not my favorite. I have purchased the book to try and find the better moments spoken of in class.
"The Operator is the Photographer. The Spectator is ourselves, all of us who glance through collections of photographs- in magazines and newspapers, in books, albums, archives...
And the person or thing photographed is the target, the referent, a kind of little simulacrum, any eidolon emitted by the object, which I should like to call the Spectrum of Photograph, because this word retains, through its root, a relation to 'spectacle' and adds to it that rather terrible thing which is there in every photograph: the return of the dead."
I find the way Barthes writes very interesting by somewhat hard to follow. "The return of the dead," is a bit dramatic.
The best part of these experts is the section about punctum or studium. Whereas the studium is the act of studying, gathering the knowledge about photography. The actual education and civility behind a photograph. Punctum is the image that grabs your attention. The one you always remember and can never forget. The one that will haunt you for the rest of your life. Punctum and Studium are great terms coined by Barthe to summarize what is important about photography.
"The Operator is the Photographer. The Spectator is ourselves, all of us who glance through collections of photographs- in magazines and newspapers, in books, albums, archives...
And the person or thing photographed is the target, the referent, a kind of little simulacrum, any eidolon emitted by the object, which I should like to call the Spectrum of Photograph, because this word retains, through its root, a relation to 'spectacle' and adds to it that rather terrible thing which is there in every photograph: the return of the dead."
I find the way Barthes writes very interesting by somewhat hard to follow. "The return of the dead," is a bit dramatic.
The best part of these experts is the section about punctum or studium. Whereas the studium is the act of studying, gathering the knowledge about photography. The actual education and civility behind a photograph. Punctum is the image that grabs your attention. The one you always remember and can never forget. The one that will haunt you for the rest of your life. Punctum and Studium are great terms coined by Barthe to summarize what is important about photography.
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
Towards a Philosophy of Photography- Vilem Flusser
"The specific capacity to abstract planes form the space-time "out there," and to re-project this abstraction back "out there" might be called "imagination." It is the capacity to produce and decipher images, the capacity to codify phenomena in two-dimensional symbols, and then to decode such symbols."
I really appreciate this statement. Some people believe it to be difficult to create something abstract in a 2-D space. That it is easier to create something in that sense in the 3-D world. I do believe it poses as being more difficult, but definitely not impossible. I love the idea of imagination as the tool to the abstraction and the deciphering of the code of 2-D language. It is then that linear writing is spoken of as "...transcoded the circular time of magic into the linear time of history." There then becomes a reason for the abstraction and a way to describe it. All in the round circular formation of the world. "When writing was invented, a new capacity came into being: "conceptualization."" Conceptualization is the foundation for most fine art, it is the very essence of why we do what we do. I myself find the formation of conceptualization with the written word, to be more difficult. I can art for days, but describing the reason for that art in words, on paper is the hardest!
"Techni-cal images, for their part, are third-degree abstractions; they are abstracted from the concrete world. Again, historical-ly, traditional images may be called "pre-historical," while technical images ay be called "post-historical,".
The technical images is created through an apparatus and at that point is considered, not a first person representation of what was created. That through the apparatus, another point of interest is involved. I, myself view the "apparatus" or camera I use as a tool, not as another point of inference for the construction of the design of my image. "... as in fingerprints where the meaning (the finger) is the cause and the image (the print) is the effect." Cause and effect is very obvious in this chapter. The apparatus is the cause for the final product. I disagree.
"Technical images were meant, first, to re-introduce images into daily life; second, to render hermetic texts imaginable;and third, to render visible the subliminal magic inherent in cheap texts... they were meant simultaneously to be "beautiful," "true," and "good... In face, however, technical images do not function in that way."
The apparatus is viewed as "to prepare", the thing that you prepare your photos with. It is then delved into as a cultural object, the thing people can consume. The apparatus is the tool that extends from the body and becomes part of the body. Then you have to question is it the apparatus or the person with the extension that is taking and image. All images would be redundant if it were not for those using the tool. "Basically, the photography- in the strictest sense meant here- tries to establish situations such as have never existed before.
I really appreciate this statement. Some people believe it to be difficult to create something abstract in a 2-D space. That it is easier to create something in that sense in the 3-D world. I do believe it poses as being more difficult, but definitely not impossible. I love the idea of imagination as the tool to the abstraction and the deciphering of the code of 2-D language. It is then that linear writing is spoken of as "...transcoded the circular time of magic into the linear time of history." There then becomes a reason for the abstraction and a way to describe it. All in the round circular formation of the world. "When writing was invented, a new capacity came into being: "conceptualization."" Conceptualization is the foundation for most fine art, it is the very essence of why we do what we do. I myself find the formation of conceptualization with the written word, to be more difficult. I can art for days, but describing the reason for that art in words, on paper is the hardest!
"Techni-cal images, for their part, are third-degree abstractions; they are abstracted from the concrete world. Again, historical-ly, traditional images may be called "pre-historical," while technical images ay be called "post-historical,".
The technical images is created through an apparatus and at that point is considered, not a first person representation of what was created. That through the apparatus, another point of interest is involved. I, myself view the "apparatus" or camera I use as a tool, not as another point of inference for the construction of the design of my image. "... as in fingerprints where the meaning (the finger) is the cause and the image (the print) is the effect." Cause and effect is very obvious in this chapter. The apparatus is the cause for the final product. I disagree.
"Technical images were meant, first, to re-introduce images into daily life; second, to render hermetic texts imaginable;and third, to render visible the subliminal magic inherent in cheap texts... they were meant simultaneously to be "beautiful," "true," and "good... In face, however, technical images do not function in that way."
The apparatus is viewed as "to prepare", the thing that you prepare your photos with. It is then delved into as a cultural object, the thing people can consume. The apparatus is the tool that extends from the body and becomes part of the body. Then you have to question is it the apparatus or the person with the extension that is taking and image. All images would be redundant if it were not for those using the tool. "Basically, the photography- in the strictest sense meant here- tries to establish situations such as have never existed before.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)