In regards to Mark's blog

I found it quite interesting that Mark felt that the photographs that Adam Jahiel took were "ideal." I think that he must have missed the whole point of his series, which I found to be quite obvious. Jahiel's series of "The Last Cowboy" is showing that being a cowboy is a dying job, with technology growing every day, there are newer and more efficient ways to gather cattle. So, his point which I mentioned in my presentation was to document history. He is documenting something that probably won't last too much longer. So, by saying that they are "ideal" (when comparing them to old photographs of cowboys) shows you are not comprehending his point. He isn't trying to show his photographs different from what is really going on, rather he is documenting the truth. I feel that his reasoning behind using black and white, is to give the idea of the "old times," because like I said this job was important back in the days, where now it is being replaced by technology. Just wanted to try and clarify the point of Jahiel's series.

"Re-Reading Edward Weston"

I don't really have too much to day about this article. But, one comment in it that kind of got me thinking was "Lucy Lippard has described the feminist contribution to modernism as precisely a lack of contribution." This is something that I disagree with. Personally, I think that women have made modernism in the sense that women never used to be in the art world. Now, women are just as common to art as males are. Sure, when photography first got its start, there were not many women involved, but that was not out of the ordinary for those days. Women were meant to stay home, that was society. But modern art/photography, women are very common. I personally think that there are still to many old time photographers that hate seeing women in the field of photography. When I photograph weddings, I have had first hand experience with older male photographers being short and talking down to me like I shouldn't be in the business. Society has changed so much with women in the workforce, and I feel that some people just want to live in the past.

"America, Seen Through Photographs Darkly"

One aspect of this article that was discussed was the beauty and ugliness in the subject matter of photographs. My thoughts on this topic is that there is beauty and ugliness in photographs. Obviously, you wouldn't look at a photograph such as "Napalm Girl" and see beauty in it. That is a photograph that is awful and terrible to look at. It is a photograph that is documenting something terrible that happened. But at the same time, Edward Weston can take a photograph of a pepper, and it is beautiful. Some people look at the subject, and the subject only. They don't look at the beauty in the form of it, or the way the light hits it. The article also brought up celebrities; "No moment is more important than any other moment; no person is more interesting than any other person." I believe that when photographing people, it is the inner beauty that radiates through the physical appearance. And in portraiture, I think that a successful portrait is one that shows something about the subject, one that can show "true beauty." "In photographing dwarfs, you don't get majesty and beauty. You get dwarfs." This statement I strongly disagree with. I feel that a successful photograph would bypass the physical attributes of the subject and focus more upon what is truly trying to be said about its subject.

I found this article to be very interesting. It really brought up some points that were important to photography. I don't think that you need a gorgeous model, or celebrity, or even a flower to see beauty. A photograph should be able to show more than just the obvious.

Propaganda

After reading the article, "What is propaganda and how does it differ from persuasion" and also the lecture in class today, I kind of have a different outlook on the topic. I never really thought too much about propaganda, and it is something we encounter very often, it is just that I don't really think when I am looking at a photograph or painting (or whatever form it might be in) that the message I am getting from it is propaganda. It is in the back of my head, but I never really think twice about it. I know that it is propaganda, but I don't consider that when I am looking at it. In class, we had a discussion about advertising vs. propaganda. And my thoughts on everything was that they both have a very similar agenda; and that is to portray a message to the viewer. But the big difference between advertising and propaganda in my opinion is that propaganda deals with more serious subjects, opinionated, and important subjects; where as advertising is more of a materialistic subject. Propaganda deals with war, economy, politics, etc. Advertising deals with fashion, electronics, or in general material goods. To me, it is plain and simple that advertising is pushing a product, where as propaganda is pushing an opinion.

Aesthetic?

This article really brought up some strong points about photojournalist photographer that have crossed my mind before, but I never truly thought in depth about it. "Consumer-society photographers approach but do not enter. In hurried visits to scenes of despair or violence, they climb out of the plane or helicopter, press the shutter release, explode the flash: they shoot and run. They have looked without seeing and their images say nothing." I agree with this comment, but at the same time disagree. To someone that does not know how to read a photograph, they see those photographs that these photo journalistic photographers are taking, and it gets the point across to them. But for someone with knowledge in photography, might see it completely different; even as an empty photograph. I always wondered how a photojournalist can take photographs at awful things, leave the scene as soon as you get your photograph, and then get paid for it. Some people see it as their job, but I see it as something that is not completely right. Which is probably why photojournalism never interested me. I really see where Galeano is getting when he said that. And then there is the controversy of whether or not you can consider these photographs to be aesthetic.

After reading this I thought back to the class where we spoke about some controversial photographs, and I wondered how these photographers felt okay making money off of such awful subject matters. And then there are some photographers that it hits them, and they don't want to make money off of them, but they feel like the photograph should be seen, to document history and to let the rest of the world know what is going on. I guess there is much to debate about whether photo journalistic photographers.

"Evidence, Truth, and Order"

I found this article to be rather confusing, but what I did understand I found interesting. The last sentence of the article says, ""Photographs are never 'evidence' of history; they are themselves the historical." I found this quote to be quite interesting. And it got me thinking that I have never thought about photographs in that sense. But, it is so true. Photographs are artifacts and they document something that make history, just by the presence of them. Photographs are not just something that documents and proves history, rather, they are in fact something that makes history. Without photographs we wouldn't know as much as we do about the past, and also they then give us artifacts from that time.

As much as I found this article relatively confusing, at the same time, even from just several points that John Tagg brings up, I was able to get the general idea's he was trying to convey. And I really thought that they were interesting, and they really got me thinking.

"Charles S. Peirce's Theory of Signs"

I thought that this article was very descriptive and very in depth. I don't truly believe that all of this analyzing is completely necessary, but I can see some of his points.

"Peirce argues that every thought is a sign, and that every act of reasoning consists of the interpretation of signs. Signs function as mediators between the external world of objects and the internal world of ideas. Signs may be mental representations of objects, and objects may be known by means of perception of their signs. Peirce thus defines 'semiosis' as the process by which representations of objects function as signs..."

So, when I think of a photograph, we all know that there are signs. Signs can be read in many different ways, and it deals with your perception of the photograph or the "object." And I guess this is true about everything. I think that Peirce tends to over-analyze quit a bit. I also feel that he is using these large words to sound extra scholarly. I guess I sometimes don't understand that something so obvious (signs are everywhere) has to be so in depth and completely picked apart. I think since I had a harder time reading this article, I became frustrated with what Peirce was saying, or what I understood it as. Yes, signs are everywhere, and in photography they are very important, and they could be interpreted in many different ways, that is obvious. It is a simple idea and should not need to be broken down into 50 different terms and sciences, etc.