Photo 2 at SMU Spring 2020

The main objective of this essay is to get the reader to question and examine what is presented to us as “reality”. Which I agree is important. Initially reading this I disliked how he ended the essay saying “Prisoner, come out… And re-take the universe” (143), because it felt a little extreme. As if we are victims that at some point had the universe taken from us. Making an emphasis on us vs. them. Us consumers play a role in accepting what is given to us (and agreeing on semiotics). Thinking further and particularly about the monopolization of media corporations I see his urge to address the issue. He is essential asking for there to be a larger variety of voices in our media in the pursuit of having a more honest view of our reality.  I am having a hard time understanding what he means by, “In the post-sampling post-Internet era the presence of the past in the present is massively increased. But this spatialisation of time causes historical depth to drop out. This leads to a tr

Fisher analyzed the show Sapphire and Steel, and how it relates to our modern culture, “...it doesn’t feel as if the 21st Century has started yet. We remain trapped in the 20th century, just as Sapphire and Steel were incarcerated in their roadside cafe”. I disagree that our culture is currently at a stand still. There are many reasons why our culture is aging differently than it has in the past.  One possible factor is that our current culture is so fast paced, always looking for the next best thing, that it is unwilling to look at our present long enough to have a ‘moment’.  This pace of new information has also swelled the amount of options for consumers. For example streaming services like Netflix and Hulu (and other competitors) started taking off about a decade ago. This made a huge switch from the more limited options of cable to thousands of different options at our fingertips. This connects to why Spongbob memes work so well for my generation; for, it was sort of the end

This reading definitely shaped the way I think about photos. Particularly the part about images being a sort of ‘second life’ that is immortal. This idea clicked with me when thinking about how wrong it would feel to destroy a photo of a loved one. I personally believe we are all bodies of light. With this theory Nadar’s explanation, “everybody in its natural state was made up of a series of ghostly images superimposed in layers to infinity, wrapped in infinitesimal films… each Daguerrian operation was therefore going to lay hold of, detach, and use one of the layers of the body on which it focused.” This theory is interesting to think about.      Going with the immortality of an image, “...people in industrialized countries seek to have their photographs taken--feel that they are images, and are made real by photographs”. I absolutely agree with this. Especially with our ever expanding digital world, but I also feel there has been a more recent trend to be more private about sharin

I thought it was interesting how 6 big companies how so many copyrights that it can be hard to create some new art because of the fear of the companies taking legal action. It can also be concerning that so few companies control so much media because there is less creativity in media with less people controlling a larger percentage of what we get to observe. The author gives a similar view when he said that "filmmakers have hitherto only represented the world in various ways. The point is to generate worlds differently" ZRUOGV GLʷHUHQWO\

"But when two thirds of global copyrights are in the hands of six corporations, the capacity to rework one's memories into the material symbolic form of individual testament and testimony is severely constrained. We rarely own the memories we are sold." Such a massive portion of the media we encounter on the daily is funneled from the same sources, distributed subversively into our psyche. Coca Cola, iPhone, and MacDonalds may be the apparent 'front propositions' of mainstream commercial imagery, the variety of niches associated with these moguls are endless. In the capitalistic structures, the megaliths rising to the top enables exponentially greater allowance to exact their power. It's not really about the companies though, or their ideologies, but about the myriad of avenues they display their ethos. The distribution of images is so multifaceted and ubiquitous, and combine that with a relatively small variety of images circulated- that creates quite a p

During the Susan Sontag reading I could not help but fixate on her notion that photography “is also a powerful instrument for depersonalizing our relation to the world,” making the use of the image the very thing that separates us from what it is representing or trying to present to its audience. I kept rethinking the example of people in a museum taking photographs of art rather than experiencing the work as it is a physical object they are in the presence of. Using this image to create their experience of how hard it was to find a spot with a clear view of the work or how hard it was to fit the entire thing in frame as their relation with the work. Not only that but it causes their relationship with the object to seemingly last longer, basking in the presence of a small iPhone photo rather than a 6 foot painting creating a different intention of living or seeing than the artist probably intended with their work. I can’t escape this sensation of using image to depersonalize either es

I found it interesting how she says that a photograph can represent more than just an image, and how it can replace a memory if the only memories you have of something is through a photo or group of photos. I also thought it was interesting how she said that photography can have a certain power because it is the only image system where the creator is not in complete control. ph

I found it of interest that all photos are part of a system- it is impossible for them to exist on their own. Any particular image is inducted into a technological hierarchy, social hierarchy, and personal hierarchy. Images play on memory, location, and existence provide them value past the lightly visuals captured on the canvas. It is impossible for an image not to be related to another, either one taken or existing within in the mind, yet still it exists as a new invention on its own.

A photograph isn't just an image, it is also a direct copy of the world around us. Left with minimal artistic alterations. Debate of the image world replacing the real world A painting doesn't feel like the object itself, it has always felt separate from what was depicted. while a photograph being direct representation feels one in the same. A painting can show you an experience, while a photograph is a more analytical depiction of information and what is. a target of surveillance. The previous form of this was writing. Photography also isn't dependent on an image maker. I don't fully agree with everything stated. Though I understand this side of things and viewing imagery as such, it discredits the person holding the camera. although it is an accurate way of depicting the world, there are ways of editing imagery both in the camera and in post production. as well as the fact, if you are depicting the world, that means there is a whole lot to chose from and

One portion of Susan's essay I found really interesting was when she spoke of photography's place in Chinese society. I had never thought about how a society such as theirs would have an effect on arts, specifically photography. "Photography in our sense has no place in their society" as they resist the "photographic dismemberment of reality." There are two ways of viewing things in Chinese society: right or wrong. There is only one correct way to photograph something, different points of view do not exist. The notion of finding or viewing something from a direction or mindset that nobody else has before is unwelcome. This idea is paralleled in the political climate of China where they are subject to a single ruling party, and opposing views are unheard of or quickly extinguished with a swift hand. In our society, both in photography and in politics, it's hard to find someone who has the same exact views as someone else. We may share some common grounds,

Fisher and his musings seem to give off a sense of loss and lack of motivation for ourselves as a people’s moving forward. Seeming as if we are caught in a time loop due to our relations now with the past and how we try to expand ourselves into a “future.” The point where he talks about losing a way directly forward in progress is something I find interesting and I wonder if there is a different context it could be placed in. Much like the Renaissance where the masters look back towards the ideologies of the ancient Greeks and Romans, I wonder if a Digital Renaissance is possible. A point in time where we expand upon the past in order to find a way to perpetuate into a new future. Though that is extremely hard to tell and that possibility is probably not going to be realized until much longer after I die.  There also seems to be points in his writing where it seems like a generalization of the norm and not accounting for niche and movement possibilities that have yet to come int

Instantaneous: Hurricane Harvey flooding in Houston Stable: Yosemite Valley

Times Tentacles. Instantaneous: (photo of Australia fire) Stable: John Baldessari

https://www.calvertjournal.com/features/show/11361/libuse-jarcovjakova-photography-czechoslovakia https://www.calvertjournal.com/features/show/11061/surreal-ussr-collages-tamara-stoffers

https://imgur.com/a/WaK1C43 Do not open link until Friday

yeah I’m really hoping my post showed up from this weekend because it was very thoughtful and I dont know if I can recreate it, kind of like one of those paint splatter art pieces, except a lot less random.