Photomontages

"They are the egg men / I am the walrus"

"A Conductor (for Irv)"

"Stripes"

8 contrast images

Response to Icons as Fact, Fiction and Metaphor

            According to Philip Gefter in his 2009 essay Icons as Fact, Fiction and Metaphor, there are several cases in which wet or darkroom photography is not always a truthful representation of reality. Although he does not mention digital photography in any of the seven pages, there is an implied comparison being drawn between the two photographic manipulative techniques.

            Gefter made the valid statement that a photograph “comes as close as we get to witnessing an authentic moment with our own eyes while not actually being there,” which is quite true. Raw photographs often can come as close to reality as we can get in the art world. Sometimes a photographer merely shoots what he sees (thereby giving us a glimpse at the world through their eyes) but sometimes for artistic effect the little shutterbug decides to change the content in someway. Gefter provides several examples of photographers who altered the scene they were taking a picture of or recreated a pervious scene. These alterations, he argued, were neither lies nor the truth but rather an in-between in the form of a metaphor or poetic symbolic rendering of reality.

            In digital photography we often alter a snapshot to better illustrate the photograph’s purpose. Whether that means removing a person who is disrupting this purpose or adding someone in or merely adjusting the lighting, digital processes use a lot of the same ideas as darkroom photography but via programs like Adobe Photoshop. Now, the question is whether there is a difference between these digital and wet photographic processes. Arguably, both have the ability to alter the chosen picture’s composition. Gefter states that a picture “published in a newspaper is believed to be fact” whereas he suggests any advertising images are “understood to be fiction” in their alteration of the human figure.

            I personally do not think Gefter’s assumptions are fully accurate. Although he is valid in suggesting that whether a photo “needs” to be “real” or unaltered depends on its location or context, I think there are more factors in play. Every person has their own specific upbringings and assumptions about the world; they have their own unique set of eyes that see the colors of the world slightly differently from others view. Therefore, stating facts in black and white terms of newspapers are fact and ads are lies are not allowing for people who see different shades. There was a lot of outrage when people found out the amount of physical alterations that were made to models via Photoshop, so I think a more valid phrasing is that certain people expect a certain amount of “lies” for different picture presentations.

            I think when it comes down to it, the real changes we see produced by either photographic darkroom or digital processes is the simple idea of reinterpretation of reality. We all know photos are merely images and thus not truly real otherwise they wouldn’t be photographs. Unconsciously or consciously there are always alterations to any photograph as only a certain amount of the world is going to be represented, so the real difference between darkroom photography and digital processes is very minute. The techniques are different, but the concepts are very much the same. It all depends on how much is changed.

Ch 9

Exquisite corpse

How is New Media both inclusive and exclusive of the traditional media? Essay

New Media is a fascinating genre of artworks. It is both inclusive and exclusive toward traditional art forms.

This duality is brought about by several factors. Right off the bat, the not-so-secret origins of this genre is reinterpretations of tradition media or artwork in new and exciting ways. For example, one ancestor to modern “new media” pieces is the Zoetrope, which took the already established art forms of illustration and photography and reinterpreted them. It did not necessarily alter the ideas put forth by these genres, but rather presented them in a different way: it took drawings and photographs and put them into a spinning cylinder, which, when viewed, spawns the deception of motion.

This idea of reinterpretation of what came before lives on in modern New Media art pieces even though, as a very diverse art genre, sometimes this reinterpretation is harder to spot than others. Performance art, for example, takes the basic idea of theatrical production and presents it in a more artistic presentation venue and understanding. In this sense, this reinterpretation becomes more free-form or alterable compared to the sometimes more rigid dramatic presentations that need to be staged in a specific location or fallow a certain order or script.

These reinterpretations are really about taking traditional media and presenting them in modern ways. For example, the idea of Light Art draws upon the notion of using light as an art medium. Now, this notion is far from new as we have seen the medium of light used in stained glass works created centuries before the light bulb was invented, but modern Light Art reinterprets painting with these rays of electromagnetic radiation and makes them be produced by electric currents rather than from bodies of celestial origin. This reinterpretation can also be an exhibition of traditional art forms in modern ways. In the past century we have developed numerous methods in which to communicate and sometimes those methods have been used by traditional artists to transmit their original pieces. Back in the 1980s when the commercialized fax machine was a relatively newer device, we saw this transmission method be used to transmit artwork (it must be noted* that in 1985 Joseph Beuys, Andy Warhol and Kaii Higashiyama – all of whom considered more or less traditional artists in varying degrees – contributed to an art piece consisting of drawings by said artists which were then reinterpreted via the facsimile machine into Fax Art).

Now, sometimes these modern ways are not as inclusive toward traditional artworks. Digital art, for example, can be compared to painting or drawing but instead of a physical canvas the art is on a computer. Working on a digital format requires a different knowledge set: instead of knowing about brushes, pencils, paint and the like, one must have a working understanding of whatever drawing program the artist has chosen to use. Likewise, although other disciplines can be traced to more traditional methods, they require different skill sets thus making them not as inclusive toward traditional artists.

--

Footnote: The above essay was exactly 500 words long. I must say I did focus on the Types category from the Wikipedia article (with some bits from the PDF). I mention this specific area because I do not want any part of the essay to be viewed as "present[ing] texts from other authors" (as stated in the rules). Most points are drawn merely from the Types categories themselves (with examples coming from the PDF or my own knowledge), but I did note* when I listed a fact found on the Fax Art Wikipedia page which I thought was rather fascinating. Hopefully these adjoining pages are viewed not as separate pieces (since they are merely disciplines of New Media) and thus my use (in a plagiarizing manor) of examples is valid and I will receive credit for my work. 

I don't think those pages would be considered separate, but I wanted to put this note just to be sure. Let me know if there is a disagreement.

Ch 8

color image
flower_gray

Ch 2

Here's the 23rd image from my Getty Image search.

I searched for "listening to music".

I used the filters: Candid, Photography, one person, Horizontal, USA and...WALLA!

exactly how I look except I wear socks, have headphones instead of earbuds and--oh yeah!--I have a beard haha