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.

deviant

dc streets

triangles