appropriating is stealing

Appropriating images in my own opinion is definitely stealing. You are not paying the artist for their images that you are taking. Although you may not be making money off of your own work, it is still stealing! I'm not saying I never did it in college; I find that college students need to in order to learn from different artists. I'm not saying it's right though. Do you think that the artsits we are stealing from, stole from other artists when they were in school and learning? I believe they probably did. This isn't the first generation that all of a sudden steals images from other artists. You need to learn from somewhere and sometimes your professors just don't cut it. After we learn, hopefully noone has to appropriate images any longer, although some people still will and call it their own. I understand we recycle everything we can, but that's somebody's artwork!! Yeah, sure it's great to recycle certain things, but I don't think anyone would appreciate it if they were talented to create their own piece of artwork and then a few years down the road see someone take your work and then make money off of it!

Age vs. technology

I have read Amy's response to Age vs. technology and it really got me thinking. Our culture is soooo extremely obsessed with technology today that we really forget about the important things in our life. OR is it that these technological devices are the important parts of our lives. Why is there still a desire to preserve our past? What is wrong with how it's going right now that we need to cherish old customs? Maybe I do not fully understand what Amy is tryign to say, but I think it's important for us(the American culture)) to figure out what we need to do so when the next generation is being raised, they arn't more confused or more messed up than our culture is today. Amy, I think that when commenting on our future it must be paired up with our past because todays society looks down upon the NOW and how good it USed to be. SO, in other words, people are scared to see what the future will look like if it is already fucked up. I think?

post, 2/26

This chapter discusses how different mediums of art are created for the purpose of making money. I believe that film, painting and photographs are all created in order to make a profit off of it. YEs, of course all artists enjoy creating peices of art just for the sole purpose for themselves, but most artists do not want to starve and must use their talent to make some money. I believe that being a great photographer definitely has its side to making some money because of your great talent. Every photographer, if talented, will be able to sell their work to someone. Everyone has different tastes on what is beautiful. Some photographers are lucky enough to get into the commercial aspect of photography and their clients who will be paying for these photographs will be high end companies and can probably afford to pay more so these photographers might make some extra cash than fine artists. I might be biased by saying that, but it's just my own opinion.

post for 2/19

I was not able to see the poetry archive, but from being in class afterwards made me wish that I could have been there. It seems that it can be an extremely helpful resource for researching important things from way back when. It must have really been an amazing experience to be able to see and touch some original photographs from famous artists that have made history. Even though I use the digital process of photography more often than using film, I still think it’s important to know the different processes that were used back in the beginning of when photography was first discovered. I still think that the digital process has become an amazing tool for the process of photography. I think being able to learn the process of photoshop and its many features is an incredible experience. Bdeing able to transform a whole photograph on the computer is still kind of mind-boggling to me.

January 24th blog

Everyone in this world would agree that each individual has different needs. Everyone has different, important use-values. The use-values that become commodities to each individual are things that they use each and every day. Some people’s use-value for things are different than some others. Most products on the market are priced extremely too high for what they are really worth. Most of these products are commodities for individuals, so why should they have to pay so much for a certain product that shouldn’t be sold as much as it is to begin with. Because a product’s use-value is high, a consumer shouldn’t have to pay more for that one certain product. It’s really not fair! Most of these products are things that people most likely need but a lot of people, especially us college kids, learn to live without certain things because of its high cost.

Documentary Photography

I think it is absolutely wrong to set up a shot if you are trying to document something. If you are setting somehting up it then becomes a staged photograph. Timothy O'Sullivan was considered doing documentary photography although in his photograph Harvest of Death, the entire thing was staged!!! How is that documenting somehting?!?! It's not real, although it looks real and soldiers were really dead on the ground, he placed certain men in specific areas on the ground in order to capture the "documentary" photograph he was supposed to. That to me is not documentary photography. Documentary photography is somehting you are capturing in the heat of the moment... Am i wrong here?!?

Stereotyping Images

Some images and ideas that we're not usually exposed, we tend to place stereotypes on. Some examples shown in class were photographs of Arabs in normal everday outfits that they wear. In the photograph they were placed in front of a city. We(the Americans) tend to think it looks wierd because when we think of a photograph of an urban setting we think of a man in suit and tie. It's not normal for us to see people in different types of clothing in an urban setting, so automatically we think it's wrong or funny looking. This is absoulutely terrible of us to stereotype like this, but sometimes we forget about being open-minded. This is one reason why I think it is so important to travel; to become accustomed to other cultures unlike our own, and to make us more open-minded. One specific example of a photograph we spoke about was a man on a camel with a car and a Mountain Dew can on a pedestal. It's terrible for me to say, but i laughed to myself as it came up on the screen. It was wierd for me to see such an old view(man on a camel) with a contemporary car all in the same photograph. This is their life but "we" think it should be different for them just because our life is different. We just don't know, and it is wrong of us to stereotype.

class- April 4th

Joseph's presentation on his photographer I thought was an extremely well-chosen choice. I believe his work to be very controversial which may be good at some points and was very interesting to learn about how this photographer works. I would love to see this photographer's work in person in a gallery to be able to look at the photograph and hear the audio all at the same time. I do feel the photographer was putting these children down by typing out exactly what they were saying to make them look stupid. I understand he was trying to make the viewer understand what type of environment they were coming from but there was no need at all to make them look stupid at the same time. There was really no need to have the type next to each photograph. I agree with mostly everyone that just the audio would have worked fine with the photographs.

Conceptual vs. Commercial

I recall the course title for this class to be Topics of Contemporary Photography. When we were first given the assignment for our presentations, the directions were to pick a PHOTOGRAPHER of our choice to present. This is the reason I chose the PHOTOGRAPHER Timothy White to present, not becasue I'm in love with his work, but because I think he is an amazing person and has a lot to offer an individual. I was fortunate enough to intern for him over Christmas break and I know that he has taught me alot, maybe not about taking pictures, but about the repoire you must have with clients to be successful in your career. Everyone in this class will try to obtain a career at some point in their life, and if you don't have the social skills or business knowledge to go about doing that, you're basically fucked. I don't believe I am at the wrong school for what I want to pursue in my future because I do need to be conceptually educated. I was actually complaining to Timothy White about the fact that this school is extremely conceptually based and not commercially at all. He turned around and said that it was important for me to be here, where I am today, because I have learned to have a keen eye for composing photographs. He explained that being at a commercial art school, one isn't always fortunate enough to obtain that artistic ability.

experience over photograph

The experience one goes through during a photo shoot is a very important part of a photograph. I think that sometimes that one particular experience can be almost more important than how the photograph turns out. I am very interested in Dan Budnik’s, the artist that Amy presented in class last week, photography but more because of the experience he goes through meeting these amazing artists. Being able to interact with them and see how they work is quite the experience. Timothy White, the photographer that I will be presenting in class today, is another photographer who I think the experience must be very important. He takes photographs of celebrities and is able to meet them but more importantly is able to speak with them and interact with these famous people. Being a photographer who can interact with these famous people and not be star struck and treat them like normal people is an extremely important part of his job; possibly one of the most important aspects of his job. Of course the final photograph is important, because he has high end clients that have certain expectations of him, but I think that his experiences are just as important. The photographs pay the bills, but his experiences make lifetime memories and sometimes nothing can beat that. I actually believe that living the experience is one of my favorite aspects of photography and being able to capture that experience perfectly is something that I am drawn to. Does anybody else feel the same way about living the experience?

Propaganda vs. Advertising

Before class today the thought of propaganda and what it tries to accomplish never really came to my mind in depth. Many images contain propaganda whether you know it or not. After my presentation of Patrick Demarchelier and some of his work, we started discussing whether the images I presented were propaganda or not. Then someone started explaining that some images are made for advertising and other images are strictly for propaganda. I do agree that they both have a very similar job of displaying some type of message. Advertising deals with the act of trying to sell to the viewer. It may be of a materialistic subject. Propaganda is not trying to sell something. I believe it is just trying to get a message across to the viewer. Propaganda deals with many important issues that advertising will never be able to accomplish. Many issues dealt with propaganda are politics and war. Propaganda issues must be very controversial in my mind otherwise they would not be considered to be propaganda. Propaganda is trying to get the viewer to think in a certain way.

“Charles S. Peirce’s Theory of Signs”

“Charles S. Peirce’s Theory of Signs”

Was anybody at all interested in this article about Peirce’s theory of signs? Seriously, I enjoy reading about certain articles about photography and if it’s something that is beneficial for me. Does anybody care about Peirce describing logic and breaking it into three areas of study along with science and philosophy? Maybe I’m being too critical and harsh, but did I miss something? This article was extremely boring and things were repeated over and over again. I understand that all modes of thinking depends on signs. I like to think that every thought is a sign. That to me is a very interesting statement. What are thoughts signs of though? Is this what Peirce explains in the rest of the article that I don’t understand? Can someone explain it to me in a simpler way!? I just don’t understand why Peirce goes into logic, science, and philosophy in such depth about “signs.” I really just think that I don’t understand the article and would really like to discuss it in class and hear what everyone has to say about it. Hopefully most people have read this article so someone can explain it to me because it seems interesting but just in too much depth for me to comprehend!

"Photographs Objects Histories"

“Photographs Objects Histories”

After reading the article about the photograph as object I must agree with the authors and their being upset about how digitizing has taken over and it cannot compare to the original masterpieces. They speak about a form of materiality and how “the image itself, its chemistry, the paper it is printed on, the toning, the resulting surface variations” changes through digitization. I don’t necessarily agree with the fact that using a film camera is the best method. If you learn the digital method and can perfect it just as the film camera can create, then why not use digital? You don’t need to be fussing around in the darkroom any longer. Although you may be arisen to new issues like digital printing, if you know what you’re doing it can be perfected. Although these new technologies seem to be “taking over,” you still have the choice to work with whatever process you feel comfortable with. “The image itself” is not lost if you are just working with digital. That is “the image itself” on the original paper. Even though these images can be reproduced many times, obviously the first few reproductions will cost a tremendous amount more than that of the latter reproductions.

"What the Eye Does Not See"

"What the Eye Does Not See"- Ossip Brik


I found Ossip Brik’s article to be the most interesting. He has a great point when he explains that the human eye cannot see or record what the camera is able to. While reading this article it made me think back to Sontag’s reading about photographic seeing. She thought that seeing photographically was almost an issue for people. I disagree with Sontag and believe that Brik makes some great points in his article What the Eye Does Not See. The camera is able to capture certain viewpoints that the normal eye cannot see. I think that seeing photographically is an amazing trait that someone has. We see things differently than most people. Ossip Brink explains that seeing this way is acceptable. He believes that everyone should try to see past what the normal radius of the eye is capable of. Seeing through the camera, not just when photographing, but in everyday life, is something so intriguing to me. Brik thinks that the photo-eye must create their own point of view and I can’t agree with Brik more about this o

The Subject of Visual Culture

The Subject of Visual Culture

HI everyone.. Sorry I couldn’t make it to class today.. Feelin’ like shit and wound up in bed all day. Anyway I read the articles last night and they seem to be so frustrating to me! Mirzoeff’s argument was pretty ridiculous in my mind. First of all, I do not have the most amazing vocabulary in the world and this reading was frustrating for me to read on that aspect and his idea about teli-visual war I did not understand at all! I feel that if possibly he made this reading not to be so incredibly for an intellectual reader, I believe maybe I would have understood and felt differently about it. Why do theorists have to use such a strong vocabulary! I actually enjoy reading about certain topics but when the reading is so lame and boring about the same thing over and over again, it makes me hate art theory! Sorry I was so negative about the reading, and the fact that I missed class, but I was going to post last night but thought I should read over everyone else’s posts first and it doesn’t seem to me that I was so out of line with my feelings on the reading in comparison to some others students.

Sontag "Photography Within The Humanities"

Photography within the Humanities- Susan Sontag

Once again the question is brought up about whether or not photography is an art. This query is raised since the topic of photography within the humanities is discussed. I feel that this article is more of a question of if photography has a place within the humanities, and Sontag is explaining that if it does, it contains a central place. Photography is a form of art under certain limitations along with raising all kinds of questions regarding history and morality.
Sontag begins be explaining that her purpose is to discuss the problems raised by the presence of photography. She feels that it is important to study photography by looking at photographs and learning how to see. The results of learning how to see can be extended into other ways of seeing; one kind named photographic seeing. People start to see by means of the camera. Since some people are habitual camera users, they change their way of seeing. Sontag states “The world becomes a series of events that you transform into pictures, and those events have reality, so far as you have the pictures of them.”
This part of Sontag’s article was extremely interesting for me to read. I am constantly thinking about exactly what she has stated here. I feel as if wherever I am in the world on a daily basis I see certain things that I then create a photograph of what I see. I have actually spoken to my close friends who are not photographers about this. I find it to be so interesting that I see in this manner and I ask them if that ever happens to them at all. They sort of look at me like I have ten heads and once I explain myself they just say; well I’m not the photographer. I was so excited while I read this part of Sontag’s article because it made me realize that this happens to most photographers and reading about a certain situation that I experience on a daily basis was to state it simply as pretty cool. One thing that I was distraught about was the fact when Sontag explained that her purpose was to discuss the problems raised by the presence of photography. Why is it a problem if photographers just see in a different manner than everyone else in the world?

“The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”

“The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”


Benjamin begins this article by discussing how a work of art has always been reproducible. Two procedures or reproducing works of art by the Greeks was founding and stamping. In the beginning of the nineteenth century lithography came into play and the process of reproducing art was at a whole new level. The process of pictorial reproduction accelerated so swiftly because the eye perceives more swiftly than the hand can draw. The process was able to keep up with speech. Film came into play at this point. It is very interesting for me to think about the fact that a stage actor is certainly presented to the public by the actor, but with film, the screen actor is presented through the camera. I never actually sat down and thought about this but after reading this section of Benjamin’s article, it bothers me to think that we are watching what the camera actually wants us to see and not the actor himself. The camera is consistently altering its position based on the performance. Different angles and close-ups are certain factors of movement that the camera decides upon, not the screen actor.. They are initially the artist but in the end they have no control over what will be seen by the viewer. The camera takes total control and I’m not sure if I agree with that but I guess that’s why there are still stage actors that you can go see perform and see the real thing in front of your own eyes.

Extracts From Camera Lucida

Extracts From Camera Lucida

The article Extracts From Camera Lucida speaks about changing your natural ways and posing for the camera once you realize you are being observed and photographed. Barthes quotes “I have been photographed and knew it. Now, once I feel myself observed by the lens, everything changes: I constitute myself in the process of ‘posing,’ I instantaneously make another body for myself, I transform myself in advance into an image.” I believe this statement to be very true. There has not been one specific time that I would take a photograph of a person and after they realized I was photographing them, they didn’t change their pose. I feel almost as if it is just a natural occurrence to do this when you recognize the fact that you are being observed. Most people become uncomfortable when being observed. One will never be able to tell when one photographed is posed or shot in a voyeuristic manner. As I read about this topic in Barthes’ article, it made me start to think about what was spoken in class last week. One will never be able to tell when one photographed is posed or shot in a voyeuristic manner. Every photograph we observed was a question of truth. I absolutely agree with Barthes’ thoughts about ‘Posing’ and not knowing what is real or not.

"The Painter of Modern Life"

Response to Thinking about Photography

Thinking about Photography

The article Thinking about Photography discusses many different ideas about photography and the impact of the medium since the nineteenth century. There are two main ideas that I would like to discuss that were debated in this article.
Photography has been debated about for years about whether this new technology would possibly be considered an art or not. Photography was regarded to be outside of the art world because of its accurateness and the composed recording process often appeared to displace the artist’s compositional creativity. Even though outside of the realm of art, I believe the medium should still be considered an art because of its great power that creates a different kind of art than painting or drawing can produce.
An important discussion in this article is Reading the image. It explains that semiotics and psychoanalysis have contributed to certain adjustments within the humanities. Both of these have been related to the creation of the meaning of photography. Roland Barthes is known for his semiological analysis contribution to visual culture. He thinks that it is reference rather than art, or communication, which is essential to photography. “In photography the referent uniquely sticks to the image.” The time-specific characteristic emerges from this into the photograph. The photograph deals with what was. It is believed that the photograph is always about looking and seeing which I presume to be true.