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