"Looking at Photographs" and Class discussion

This article talks about the semiology of photographs. It also brought up the point that photographs are pretty much thrown at people, and they are not seen by deliberate choice. I never really thought about that, but it is so true. Because when it comes to film, or paintings we usually will pay to see them, where as photographs are everywhere. They are inevitable. If you watch the news, if you read a newspaper, if you look through a magazine, they are everywhere. But after today's discussion in class, it really made me think about semiotics, and how to read a photograph. I think that the exercise that we did in class, with choosing photographs and looking and analyzing their signs was a good exercise, but at the same time it made me think about the average person. I know that I tend to read into photographs because of my interest in photography, but I really don't believe that the average person, is going to read that far into a photograph. Even in advertisements; For example, in class we chose two photographs, I wouldn't say that I would have read into those photographs the way we did if I was just looking through a magazine. I think that a photograph really has to catch the average person's (someone that doesn't have an interest in photography) attention to be effective in its signs. And I think the signs need to be blatantly obvious to the viewer. Even the photographs that we looked at in class, are images we see in the newspaper and on the news. But I think that more people would look at the photograph and then read the article with it, than look at the photograph and truly study it, which is what we did. I think that is something that as photography students or people with an interest in photography are trained to do. We are completely interested in reading a photograph and not the article. At least that is what I do.

"Photograph Objects Histories"

"Image content is our familiar way of thinking about photographs at the simplest level. Image content is usually why photographs were purchased, collected, exchanged or given as gifts in the first place, for the indexical appeal (that breif moment of exposure of the real world in front of the camera) is one of the photograph's defining qualities." To me I see some truth in this statement. I think photographs are collected and given as gifts when the subjects are relevant to a certain person. I wouldn't necessarily say that I would care about a photograph that had people I didn't know as the subject, unless it was an antique photograph, or had some special quilty to it. I would say that the "brief moment of exposure of the real world in front of the camera" is one of photography's defining qualities. It is such a unique idea, that is intruiging to many. Photographs are so important to people because it is the only way to document an event. I feel that once you experience something, after that all you have is the memory which becomes vague, but then also the photograph, which will live on, and remind a person of that time.

"...the experience of looking at a historical image on a computer screen is profoundly different in the understandings it might generate from experience of, say, looking at the same image as an albumen print pasted in an album or a modern copy print in an archive file, for the 'grammar' of both images and things is complex and shifting"
I think this is one statement that is often debated that I really feel strongly about. I feel that so many people complain about how the internet ruins out ideas about historical photographs. i can understand and agree with the idea that you might read a photograph in a whole different way, just by the way it is presented, but at the same time I completely appreciate the internet in the sense that, whose to say I would have ever had the chance to see a particular photograph had it not been for the internet. Sure, it isn't the same as being right in front of an original, but at the same time, there aren't always many chances to be able to see an original, or modern copy for that matter. All I have been able to see most of the time is a reproduction of a reproduction, etc. in a textbook or on the internet. But I'll take what I can get.

Class Today

I thought that class today was very interesting. I would have never known that all of that was in the library, had it not been for this class. I thought it was very interesting and very intruiging to see actual originals. Today, the discussion about how the internet takes away from places like this, or libraries. Which, I can agree with to an extent. I see the internet as a very good source, if being used correctly. I think that you learn a lot more when somebody say's, "hey, have you ever see the photograph by so-and-so" and all you have to do is get onto the internet. I think if something is important enough to someone, then they might go as far as going and looking at an original. I completely appreciate being able to look at an original, since all we every see are reproductions, but the internet can be such a source of knowledge, which I appreciate just as much. Plus, if you use the internet to see something, it could save you a pretty long travel experience.

Class was a very good learning experience for me, and I think it is something that I would actually go back to. I also thought it was very entertaining to hear how much one original photograph could cost. To me, some of them sound outrageous. But, other than that, I found this meeting to be quite satisfying.

"The Incubator"

I thought that this was a harder article to read, but it definitely got me thinking about photography and how far it has come from the first image by Niepce. I don't know if I completely agree with some of the points in the artice. I think that the writer often discredits "View from the window at Gras." I guess how I see it is that photography had to start somewhere, and even though the heliograph is barely visible, it was still the start of photography. And if anything I think that this display that is discussed sounds like a very intuiging set up. As for the reproductions, I actually find it to be quite amazing when comparing the original to the reproductions. And, at the same time, I do kind of find it sad that we really only see this image in reproductions. I think that seeing the original makes me feel so appreciative towards what photography has become, and I think that it teaches us a lot about how difficult it was to take a photograph, having an exposure of hours. To think that today, you hear the shutter and look at a screen and see your image within a second.

Although, I was confused at times during this article, I still found it to be very interesting. Like I said, I feel that Niepse is often discredeted for his work and the start of photography by some historians and theorists, but I felt this article really puts things into perspective for me.

"Man with a Movie Camera"

At first I was quite confused after watching "Man with a Movie Camera," But after thinking about it and now after reading this article, I found it to be quite interesting. I love the idea of how ther camera man is going everywhere, and for the most part it is at a very fast pace. I love how he is not letting anything stop him, not even a dangerous place, that could easily kill him or hurt him, and ruin his camera. The camera was so new at the time of this film, I'm surprised to see him put it in harm's way. But, at the same time, he will do anything for his footage. Often how I am when I am out taking photographs. If it is a perfect opportunity, and I want that photograph that bad, I sometimes don't think, and risk it.

I thought that the film was very well done, especially for the time. I love how everything plays together and it all is shown in rhythm. I think that the movie is very monotonous, but at the same time, it is hard to stop watching it. The score is so well written to fit the busy life of the city. It becomes dramatic when the cameraman is filming something dangerous, it gets gentle, when the images are slow. Overall, I really did enjoy this movie, because I love how the cameraman is going everywhere, showing a busy and growing economy. I love the idea that he is being filmed, while he is filming. I think something that would be very interesting to watch, would be the cameraman's video that he filmed during the movie, since we are watching the video that was used to film the cameraman filming.

"The Subject of Visual Culture" - Nicholas Mirzoeff

This article was interesting and it brought up some good points. It relates a lot to what we have discussed in class about how we compare so much of what happens in the world to a particular movie. Today's society is a visual culture, there is no question about that. I don't think that I would go as far as to say that it's a good thing though. He mentions in the article that we are caught on camera, and that we move from one camera to another, without even knowing it. This to me is scary when I think about it. I don't like the idea of people knowing where you are at all times. To me I feel like I have been violated or that "Big Brother" is watching at all times. But I guess that's what we get when we live in such a visual and technological culture.

"That is to say, following Donna Haraway's famous assertion that we are all now cyborgs, we need to know how the computer sees, to learn how to recognize its gaze and then to imitate it." I had actually never heard this comment, but I can completely understand it. This society has come down to nothing but technology, and in a way it is sad, because it is being forced on people like our parents, that have never experienced it. So, now you have the children teaching the parents. He states that a younger generation takes the "digital gaze" for granted. But you can't blame the younger generation, because it is all they know. They are completely naive to a world which lacks technology and visuals.

"Photography Within The Humanities" - Susan Sontag

I am actually quite surrprised after reading this article. Several years ago, I remember reading one of Sontag's essays and being incredibily disappointed and very upset, from her views in photography; but after reading this, I found that she actually has a good outlook on topics in photography. Sometimes, I still pass judgement on her in the sense that she openely admits to not owning a camera, and never photographing anything, but still being so judgmental on photography, but after reading this, I really feel that she has a good grasp on the topic.

Sontag talks about how there is such thing as "photographic seeing." And it isn't something that every person has. She mentions that some people are able to see by means of the camera, and that people change their way of seeing "in the process of becoming habitual camera users." "The wolrd becomes a series of events that you transform into pictures, and those events have reality, so far as you have the pictures of them." With this theory of her's I could not agree more. I think a lot of people pass judgment when you say that you are in the photography field. They tend to think that it is something anyone can do. So, I was very impressed that Sontag was so knowledgeable about something that she has personally never done.

When I was reading her story about Richard Avedon, I was very surprised by his dilema. There have been so many times when I look at disturbing photographs, that I think to myself, does this photographer have a heart. But after hearing the Richard Avedon himself, had a hard time deciding, and that he didn't go to photograph those pictures to make money; rather he did it for himself, really kind of gave me a new perspective for some of these photographers. We talked in class about how theses photographers could take such disturbing photographs, and not have the heart to help, or whether in their situations they could do anything about it. This story kind of related to this discussion for me.

One other idea that I appreciated by Sontag was her comparisons between film and photographs. I agree with her when she stated that with film, the idea is in context, but a photograph is vulnerable. But, a photograph is and always will be more memorable that 2-3 minutes of film (or a whole film for that matter).