Monday, October 21, 2013
My last post reminded me that I wanted to say something about Sena Clara's exhibit in our campus gallery. I really appreciated that she took time to talk to us about her work. Although, I enjoyed looking at the whole exhibit, I felt most interpellated by Sena Clara's work, especially after she explained how and why she created her work. I found myself even more curious about the process of how she edited each photo to achieve the end result. But what I loved the most was her honesty about the embarrassment she felt using a cell phone camera to capture images. I can really relate to that! In my job, I take pictures of the houses I list and although I don't consider myself an artist, I do take pride in getting showings on a house quickly when my photos show the house in a positive way, especially if I'm able to make the house look better than it actually does, and even more so when I used my cell phone to take the photos! I used to routinely use it and I would always try to arrange a time when the seller wouldn't be there...so they wouldn't catch me using it. Occasionally sellers ask me if I'll be using a "professional" photographer to take the photos. Wouldn't it be fun if I said "yes, I will" and then brought Sena Clara over with her cell phone?
On Aesthetics and Taste...
Why do we stop and gaze at a work of art or photo?...because it brings us pleasure. However, there could be many reasons that we find the piece 'pleasurable' to look at. There are people who find pleasure in looking at something that others find sick & disgusting, so it's still comes down to individual taste, right? No. It's been shown that "taste" is influenced our experiences...background, social class, our level of education, etc. Society often labeled people as to whether we are high class, low class or no-class based on our tastes. Well, thank you to art critic Clement Greenberg who help boost the status of people like me, for arguing the kitsch (I love that word) is art, too.
Why do we stop and gaze at a work of art or photo?...because it brings us pleasure. However, there could be many reasons that we find the piece 'pleasurable' to look at. There are people who find pleasure in looking at something that others find sick & disgusting, so it's still comes down to individual taste, right? No. It's been shown that "taste" is influenced our experiences...background, social class, our level of education, etc. Society often labeled people as to whether we are high class, low class or no-class based on our tastes. Well, thank you to art critic Clement Greenberg who help boost the status of people like me, for arguing the kitsch (I love that word) is art, too.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Moving on to the next section "Producers Intended Meanings". The authors are refering to a point made by French theorist Roland Bathes that text offers "a multidimensional space that the reader deciphers or interprets" and that images and media may hold different meaning for different readers/viewers. They've made Barthes concept pretty clear but then they go on to say..
"Barthes advocated for the work of a critical and analytical reader whose interpretive practices are grounded in the historical contexts and postions from which texts are always read, as a means of showing how the authority of the author as the primary producer of the literary text is in fact a myth."
Then they try to explain what Barthes means here by saying...
"His point was, in part, that texts are produced in the act of reading them and that these acts are performed from the cultural and political perspectives of readers and never fully according to the intentions of the author or producer."
Wow...that really clarified it for me! Ha!
I think what they are trying to point out is that an authors intended meaning may be not be how the viewer/reader interprets it. Any thoughts?
"Barthes advocated for the work of a critical and analytical reader whose interpretive practices are grounded in the historical contexts and postions from which texts are always read, as a means of showing how the authority of the author as the primary producer of the literary text is in fact a myth."
Then they try to explain what Barthes means here by saying...
"His point was, in part, that texts are produced in the act of reading them and that these acts are performed from the cultural and political perspectives of readers and never fully according to the intentions of the author or producer."
Wow...that really clarified it for me! Ha!
I think what they are trying to point out is that an authors intended meaning may be not be how the viewer/reader interprets it. Any thoughts?
Hello! I'm back after a long vacation from blogging. While I've been away, I have been doing my assigned reading from "Practices of Looking", I just haven't be blogging about it. I have a hard time doing that, so I've been trying to figure out why, and also, how to get started again. I thought maybe I had "blogaphobia" and maybe I do. Maybe its easier once you get to know your audience a little better. But I think I've figured out the real reason that I've had such a hard time and what I can do to get going again.
First of all, I really don't care for the writing style of at least one of the authors...I don't feel interpellated by much of what they say, and I think the reason is that (in my opinion) they often take a relatively simple concept and use sentences that are much too long to explain it. I know that I have ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) and that my mind can easily wander sometimes when I'm reading, but this book just doesn't help that. So, after doing the Wikipedia assignment, I came up with an idea....When I come across the sentences that I think make a concept confusing, I'll just post it here and maybe we can break it down into something a littler simpler. Of course, when I went back to the beginning of Chapter 2...Viewers Make Meaning...I couldn't find a good example. This concept in this section is pretty clear I think. "Some images strongly interpellate viewers, some do not." 50
Whenever I've gone to an art gallery or museum with someone else, I notice that I'll get stuck gazing at a work of art that really speaks to me...draws me in. The person with me may go quickly by it, and maybe even quickly past everything, and then hang around waiting for me to finish. I feel rushed and don't enjoy my time there as much. So, I've decided that I should go by myself, that way, when I feel interpellated by something, I can stay at look as long as I want to.
First of all, I really don't care for the writing style of at least one of the authors...I don't feel interpellated by much of what they say, and I think the reason is that (in my opinion) they often take a relatively simple concept and use sentences that are much too long to explain it. I know that I have ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) and that my mind can easily wander sometimes when I'm reading, but this book just doesn't help that. So, after doing the Wikipedia assignment, I came up with an idea....When I come across the sentences that I think make a concept confusing, I'll just post it here and maybe we can break it down into something a littler simpler. Of course, when I went back to the beginning of Chapter 2...Viewers Make Meaning...I couldn't find a good example. This concept in this section is pretty clear I think. "Some images strongly interpellate viewers, some do not." 50
Whenever I've gone to an art gallery or museum with someone else, I notice that I'll get stuck gazing at a work of art that really speaks to me...draws me in. The person with me may go quickly by it, and maybe even quickly past everything, and then hang around waiting for me to finish. I feel rushed and don't enjoy my time there as much. So, I've decided that I should go by myself, that way, when I feel interpellated by something, I can stay at look as long as I want to.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
DTC The Value of Images
Why is it that the value of a work of art (visual art) seems to increase so much after the artist dies? It doesn't seem to be the case with music. Not as much so, anyway. I guess that's because artists typically (not always the case) work in private, not in front of large audiences. In music, the opposite is true. Artists gain notoriety when they die and people think that they they can own something that is limited in number. Music is different. It will be listened to over and over throughout decades, and reproduced many times by different artists, whether the original artist is dead or alive.
Like music, art can illicit some strong emotion by it's viewers. I've only had the opportunity to visit a few art museums, and only in the US, but I've seen some pretty awesome exhibits at the Smithsonian and Seattle Art Museum among a few others. I thought it was an incredible, indescribable feeling to stand in front of an original work of art, especially the really huge pieces. I can understand how extremely wealthy people, who have the ability, would want to own a famous works of art. Fortunately, we have museums and it's not all bought up by private collectors.
Why is it that the value of a work of art (visual art) seems to increase so much after the artist dies? It doesn't seem to be the case with music. Not as much so, anyway. I guess that's because artists typically (not always the case) work in private, not in front of large audiences. In music, the opposite is true. Artists gain notoriety when they die and people think that they they can own something that is limited in number. Music is different. It will be listened to over and over throughout decades, and reproduced many times by different artists, whether the original artist is dead or alive.
Like music, art can illicit some strong emotion by it's viewers. I've only had the opportunity to visit a few art museums, and only in the US, but I've seen some pretty awesome exhibits at the Smithsonian and Seattle Art Museum among a few others. I thought it was an incredible, indescribable feeling to stand in front of an original work of art, especially the really huge pieces. I can understand how extremely wealthy people, who have the ability, would want to own a famous works of art. Fortunately, we have museums and it's not all bought up by private collectors.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
DTC 356
Reading about semiotics and how we interpret signs and symbols, I started thinking about all that we take for granted and what it would be like for someone in a foreign country. I haven't traveled outside the country much so I got curious and looked up signs for restrooms, since that's one of the more important signs. Maybe I was thinking of that because just last week I accidently used the men's bathroom in a restroom...just a little embarrasing!! But you know, if you're in a hurry, it's not that hard to mistake the black pants and black dress. Anyway, I thought I'd show you a restroom sign that gets the point across.
Bathroom sign in Turkey.
Reading about semiotics and how we interpret signs and symbols, I started thinking about all that we take for granted and what it would be like for someone in a foreign country. I haven't traveled outside the country much so I got curious and looked up signs for restrooms, since that's one of the more important signs. Maybe I was thinking of that because just last week I accidently used the men's bathroom in a restroom...just a little embarrasing!! But you know, if you're in a hurry, it's not that hard to mistake the black pants and black dress. Anyway, I thought I'd show you a restroom sign that gets the point across.
Bathroom sign in Turkey.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)