“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!
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
"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.
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.
Monday, February 12, 2007
"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
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
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
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.
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.
Monday, February 5, 2007
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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)