Thursday, January 29, 2009
This is Jorge Foxdale. He is unique to the SecondLife world and appears as I created him to be. His appearance interests me because it is so incredibly outside of my regular scope of thought. Myself, a white male, exists as a middle aged black male in the SecondLife world. He reminds me of a more reserved Morpheus from the Matrix. He is a wearing a customized Black Tux, bought from Sarah Nerd, plus additional ammenities like a longer jacket and a customized shirt. I used Wallpaper colors to give his clothes a unique appearance.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Chapter 2: Viewers Make Meaning
The evolution of viewing is a fascinating topic, especially if you take into consideration the generation, culture, and demographic looking at the image. The meanings (what we, as analyzers, can always count on to exist) will vary in "at least" three different ways and are broken down in this chapter as 1) The fixed nature of an images' structure, 2) The subjective nature of interpretations and experiences, and lastly 3) The context or environment that the image is exhibited or viewed. As an aside, I think it interesting how this foundation for the analysis of viewing, can apply to everything from the paratextuality of a Stephen King novel cover, to an 17th century painting.
The author or creator of any image has very limited control after it reaches the public. Michel Foucault makes a very interesting observation that the author's function is basically limited to giving a set of beliefs or a loose outline to its readers. Likewise, the "producer's function" leads us to have a certain expectation about a work. The most influential entity is therefore the viewer. The viewer rarely has access to the original intentions of the producers and subsequently, determines an images meaning independently. This is not always the case, as in advertisement images where the intention of its producers is typically transparent. Images are increasingly being connected to other images. For instance, if you Google, "ethnicity," you are going to get a huge variety of images, all of which affect your intake of the image to end up choosing.
Marx, as random as he might seem, lends his hand to our understanding of how we interpret images. Basically, he saw the proliferation of ideologies (in our case, the producers of images) as a "kind of false consciousness." In other words, the people in control of these ideologies can manipulate individuals, creating a harmful imaginary relationship to their "real conditions of existence."
Discussion Questions;
1. Are there too many external images (advertisement, TV, the internet, etc) controlling our reality? In other words, are we really the interpreters anymore?
2. Is Marx making a legitimate point about the fact that the individual (us) is in an imaginary relationship with existence? Are the bigtime producers of images (i.e. The News, Advertisements, ...) pulling the wool over our eyes and are we eating out of their hands?
3. Phrases and words evolve over time, like "gay" and "Black is beautiful," how do images evolve over time?
The author or creator of any image has very limited control after it reaches the public. Michel Foucault makes a very interesting observation that the author's function is basically limited to giving a set of beliefs or a loose outline to its readers. Likewise, the "producer's function" leads us to have a certain expectation about a work. The most influential entity is therefore the viewer. The viewer rarely has access to the original intentions of the producers and subsequently, determines an images meaning independently. This is not always the case, as in advertisement images where the intention of its producers is typically transparent. Images are increasingly being connected to other images. For instance, if you Google, "ethnicity," you are going to get a huge variety of images, all of which affect your intake of the image to end up choosing.
Marx, as random as he might seem, lends his hand to our understanding of how we interpret images. Basically, he saw the proliferation of ideologies (in our case, the producers of images) as a "kind of false consciousness." In other words, the people in control of these ideologies can manipulate individuals, creating a harmful imaginary relationship to their "real conditions of existence."
Discussion Questions;
1. Are there too many external images (advertisement, TV, the internet, etc) controlling our reality? In other words, are we really the interpreters anymore?
2. Is Marx making a legitimate point about the fact that the individual (us) is in an imaginary relationship with existence? Are the bigtime producers of images (i.e. The News, Advertisements, ...) pulling the wool over our eyes and are we eating out of their hands?
3. Phrases and words evolve over time, like "gay" and "Black is beautiful," how do images evolve over time?
Monday, January 19, 2009
Chapter 1; Images, Power, and Politics
Our culture is inundated with visual stimulation making it difficult to organize and navigate through them and come out with some underlying principle or some maxim of uniformity. Throughout history, we can see the different uses of photographs, art, and a plethora of other mediums and most of these images have a common thread - they are designed to attract our attention and convey a message of some sort. Photography has evolved from a highly exclusive art form into a common occurrence, seen everywhere from advertising to Facebook (which may be some form of self advertising...but that's another can of worms). Images have the ability to canonize and memorialize an entire decade or generation or war, and etc... For instance, Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother has, in many ways, epitomized the Great Depression. Among many reasons for the popularity of this photograph, the way it portrays confusion and desperation hits at the raw, stark reality of the Depression and put this image in the hearts and minds of the general public, and perhaps more importantly, the wealthy.
The signifier and the signified are not always what the creator of a particular object had in mind. In most cases, the agenda of the creator is transparent (as in demasculating Marlboro Man anti-smoking ad). Another example would be the fact that Dorothea Lange asked this small family to pose for her famous Migrant Mother photo, obviously having preconcieved notions about what sort of reactions her audience would elicit from her photo. An example of the converse (a photo that was candidly born), is Tiananmen Square. It is not considered an artistic, or valuable piece, in that its denotative meaning "is simply a young man standing before a tank." It is in the connotative meaning that this photo proves its worth. It became a contagious icon for courage and defiance against the government.
Three discussion questions:
What is more important, the artist's intended meaning or the audience's immediate reaction?
Have pictures only become more inclined towards shock value and sensationalism because of the sheer volume that an average American takes in on a daily basis...Does it take more (a relative term, I know) to truly fix our attention?
How can we draw a line between iconic images and denotative images?
Our culture is inundated with visual stimulation making it difficult to organize and navigate through them and come out with some underlying principle or some maxim of uniformity. Throughout history, we can see the different uses of photographs, art, and a plethora of other mediums and most of these images have a common thread - they are designed to attract our attention and convey a message of some sort. Photography has evolved from a highly exclusive art form into a common occurrence, seen everywhere from advertising to Facebook (which may be some form of self advertising...but that's another can of worms). Images have the ability to canonize and memorialize an entire decade or generation or war, and etc... For instance, Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother has, in many ways, epitomized the Great Depression. Among many reasons for the popularity of this photograph, the way it portrays confusion and desperation hits at the raw, stark reality of the Depression and put this image in the hearts and minds of the general public, and perhaps more importantly, the wealthy.
The signifier and the signified are not always what the creator of a particular object had in mind. In most cases, the agenda of the creator is transparent (as in demasculating Marlboro Man anti-smoking ad). Another example would be the fact that Dorothea Lange asked this small family to pose for her famous Migrant Mother photo, obviously having preconcieved notions about what sort of reactions her audience would elicit from her photo. An example of the converse (a photo that was candidly born), is Tiananmen Square. It is not considered an artistic, or valuable piece, in that its denotative meaning "is simply a young man standing before a tank." It is in the connotative meaning that this photo proves its worth. It became a contagious icon for courage and defiance against the government.
Three discussion questions:
What is more important, the artist's intended meaning or the audience's immediate reaction?
Have pictures only become more inclined towards shock value and sensationalism because of the sheer volume that an average American takes in on a daily basis...Does it take more (a relative term, I know) to truly fix our attention?
How can we draw a line between iconic images and denotative images?
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
