Playing catch up...The True Meaning of Pictures

This movie was incredibly provocative. Every single person I have talked to who has seen this movie has felt very strongly about this movie in one way or another. The movie is so polarizing because Shelby Lee Adams' images and work are so provoking. Since everyone seems to take a stance on his work, it would be appropriate that I do the same. Personally, I do not see Adam's work as exploitative of his subjects because of the strong relationship he has with them. There is no way that Adams' would have been able to capture (or create) these images without such a strong bond. What I found particularly interesting about Adams' work is that he saw it as representational of Appalachian culture. He took that idea even further by claiming it as self-representation. For me, this is more legitimizing than Adams' relationship with his subjects because, he is representing Appalachia as a member of the culture and because he obtains the approval of his subjects before publishing. By incorporating his subjects into the editorial process he is allowing for a certain degree of self representation. I think problems begin to arise when these photos are presented to a population that does not share the same values as Adams' subjects. There is a simple dissonance of values between the subjects and the viewers. I think that viewers must be cognizant of this difference when viewing these images, otherwise they place too many of their own values upon the images.

happening on the frame

Stop Animation Movie (no sound)

the unseen gulf war

Peter Turnley's photographs are eerily calm and visually compelling. From his photos I get a strong sense of distance between the Iraqi people and the Americans. They are rarely photographed together. In the few photos that they are there is the most minimal of interaction and physical contact. Perhaps that's how it really is, but I don't feel that Turnley gave me a holistic view of the war from his images. I am still left feeling like there is more. This is why this excerpt struck me as a bit odd, "I feel that it is part of my role as a photojournalist to offer the viewer the opportunity to draw from as much information as possible, and develop his or her own judgment." Isn't Turnley limiting the amount of information I can draw just by the simple act of choosing to present certain images. Does Turnley constrain the parameters in which I am making my judgement by electing to show me this images? Also, Turnley admits that he flew from Paris to Rihayd after the conflict was over, which seems a bit like ambulance chasing. This very fact makes it difficult, at least in my mind, for Turnley to acheive his "role as a photojournalist" since he omits the causal aspects of his images.

Lomography

"A bad LO­MO­graph is a bad pic­ture too; a good LO­MO­graph is also a good pho­to­graph."
That was my favorite quote from Alfred's blog. I think the Lomography story is an incredible story, it really is a great marketing scheme. I can't believe that they successfully marketed a cheap ex-soviet camera for $150. That's crazy. It's crazy that people actually would want to pay that kind of money to have a camera of dubious quality. I found this quote from wikipedia that summarizes the Lomographic characteristics, "Characteristics such as over-saturated colors, off-kilter exposure, blurring, "happy accidents," and alternative film processing are often considered part of the "Lomographic Technique." Lomography is one of those things that you wish you had thought of first. I think its incredibly ingenious what they have created by wrapping "happy accidents" and shaky craftsmenship in a warm blanket of hipster nostalgia. I don't want to come across as an anitlomographist, I just think it's pretty absurd what marketing can do.

the truth!

Phtography as a weapon -Errol Morris

Photography as a weapon of mass confusion...
The most interesting part of this blog was Morris' conversation with Hany Farid. Farid brings up the idea of how people process visual information. To our eyes it makes no difference whether or not the photograph is fake, we are still processing the information it conveys. In fact, Farid suggests that when we are told something is fake it makes us remember it even more. So while we seem to be very concerned with fake photography in the media maybe we should just be concerned with which images are being presented to us and how. As we have said many times in this class, all photogrpahy is manipulation. But in the media, its context and use are ultimately what determine how we use and process these images. Morris shows this through his humorous adaptations of COlin Powell's photos.