Changing Perception

Photo

Thu, 24 May 2012 13:58:24 -0400

Response to Chris Stewart

Thu, 24 May 2012 13:57:29 -0400

In my final response to the image lecture series for 2012, I was formally introduced to the background of our new Associate Professor in Photography. First response: discipline history and documentary photographer. He introduced himself from his student days and family history, which brought him to how he shoots today. I felt relieved in a way when listening to him talk about how he found why it was he was photographing what it was he was photographing. As a student myself I am still trying to find not only the reason I am taking photographs, but, what it is I am taking photographs of, as well as to understand myself as a photographer. Thus to hear that he continued shooting into his masters degree still trying to work out what he was photographing years after he started photography, I felt that I didn’t have to know by now. I could still continue my degree, shooting with the question still remaining and still working in the industry. It will be interesting to see how the course changes in the means of images with Chris as I felt he was more of a documentary photographer shooting the lives of the military and security industry, as per his families history within the military and police. I felt listening to him that it was a little monotone for my liking but still interested in his career and how he got to where he was now. For me this was a nice ending to the lecture series on more of a directional heading than an educational experience.

Photo

Fri, 18 May 2012 12:19:00 -0400

Response to Soda_Jerk

Fri, 18 May 2012 12:16:00 -0400

Since the passing Monday I don’t think people have stopped thinking about the lecture or even stopped talking about it. My feeling of the general consensus – mind blowing – Even at the end of the discussion when Adam Jasper questioned Soda_jerk on their work you didn’t want to leave. There should have been another lecture – Soda_Jerk in conversation with Adam Jasper film VS photography. It wouldn’t matter where they took the topic I think everyone would be engaged by the discussion.

In film the image stills are death and film itself is the resurrection of that death, a cycle of the zoetrope as you watch the image come to life and move was the bases for the discussion, this cycle of life and death. We had studied a fair bit of the relationship between photography and film but the lecture was presented in such an interesting way that the audience didn’t want to blink. Two screen projects with the two Soda_Jerk collaboration presenting facts and myths in and out of the cinematic experience. They started with extracts from “Logan’s Run” where the over populated city kills off their population in a spectacle of death, which is conducted inside a carousel. When the carousel spins the humans are killed as they rise to the “sky”. They go on discussing the relationships between actors that have been killed or have passed away and how the film resurrects them now. An interesting point they made about photograph though was that they felt photography was the mummification for the, for a better word, soul, of the actor. It was also interesting how they showed what they thought of an invention of Thomas Edison (early motion picture device), which was thought to be by them an apparatus to speak to the spirit world, the “Ghost Box” Edison had mentioned. The Soda_Jerk lecture was one not to miss out on between the interesting facts and myths and the way they engaged with the audience. Can’t wait for the next one!

Google Street View Rio

Fri, 11 May 2012 11:21:00 -0400

Google Street View Rio

Response to Daniel Palmer

Fri, 11 May 2012 11:15:00 -0400

On Monday Daniel Palmer who is the senior lecture in Art Theory at Monash University, discussed a topic that was not unfamiliar to me and a topic that had been discussed through the academic and social media mediums. Corporations and their grab for information in particular Google with references to Facebook. Privacy is an obsolete word. The public sphere places constant restrictions on the means private photographers can express their medium and the use/ output of ones images. However this need of the public to restrict photographers from “documenting” the particular situation, out of their need of privacy within the public grounds is under minded by their willingness to hand themselves to bigger corporations. Every individuals steps, are documented by corporations or businesses within the means of CCTV surveillance, yet when Google released “Google Street View” it was met with resistance… These mediums of recording the individual (whether they are willing or not), do not enable the individual with much choice on the amount of information relayed through the medium. Facebook on the other hand, is a choice based medium, in which the individual has the choice to upload as much visual information or documentation about them selves which is placed into an accessible medium by all. Why then are there such restrictions on photographers when documenting the world if it is already currently being committed by corporations such as Google or simply by CCTV’s, and individual’s information is so easily accessible anyway. Corporations are probably one of the best examples of Foucault power. Apple was also touched on in the lecture as Daniel proceeded to inform us he could not access his iPhoto photographs because he did not have an internet-connection. This internet-connection is also required in various apps, in which IP addresses are used as locative devices to show your location on such things as maps. Between Apple and Google alone with their various forms of information collectors, the individual has no way of hiding the simplest of things, let alone having to worry about their face in a photograph. Personally I think some of the restrictions on photographers these days are ridiculous because there is no such thing as privacy to have to worry about.

Photo

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:11:00 -0400

Response To Andrew Benjamin

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 03:07:00 -0400

Lecture 7 in the series yesterday was held again at the Commercial Travelers association. Andrew Benjamin held a round table discussion with Jill Bennett, Samantha Spur, Robert Sinnerbrink and David Burns, the discussion topic reality and photography. The night started with a series of events, there was an interesting projected installation representing the carpet in the hallway, in one room our work was displayed and I felt there was some interesting discussions going on over the work as I wondered around listening to the discussions of my peers and the public. Another room had sushi and paper model making going on and the last room on that level featured the round table discussion. The room was a very formal set up with the chairs surrounding the discussion and I found the topic interesting to talk about but was hard to take in on the night.

“The photograph is not of something the photograph creates something” (Andrew Benjamin)

The discussion kept returning to the question of reality itself, is the photograph reality, is it the image of that object or is it the object itself. Andrew found the best way to explain this through the use of the history of painting because when ever we talk about photography we cannot help but talk about the history of photography in relation to painting. He gave an example of two elements: the first, you have a painting of a place and you want to go there, you celebrate this painting in relation to that place. The second example was that it is not a painting of a lemon, it is the lemon in paint. In response to the discussion photography has two parts, one the camera, which is the tool as the brush of the painter, and second, the photograph as the canvas of the painter. However, the painter paints with paint made from a substance and the photographer produces photographs by the means of capturing light emitting from the actual subject, in short the photographer is using the subject to draw. Without getting into too many of the differences between digital and film, they both use the recording of light. Film at the beginning had to require longer exposures, the result being that the subject was emitting more light into the photographer’s tool so that he could work. Meaning that more of the actual subject was imprinted onto the “canvas”. When the discussion was happening I cant help but feel this was left out. The question of reality in terms of photography then I feel becomes more is the photograph an imprint of the subject/reality or a copy of the subject/reality. In other words is the photograph a portion of reality constrained in this dead image or is it a copy of reality becoming a new reality that represents our reality

Photo

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 09:09:00 -0400

Response to Adam Jasper

Fri, 06 Apr 2012 05:46:00 -0400

Enter the mushroom, view the war history and watch out for the bee shit! Adam Jasper’s lectures/ talks are never boring, despite our current exploration into the boring and banal. Having been one of my lectures last year, Adam’s lecture was one I was disappointed to miss, however, obtaining the recording of the event, it seemed Adam was still finding entertaining and interesting ways of communicating to the audience in a very non-monotone way unlike others. Adam started the discussion with an introduction into the history of the mushroom/water tower, also known as the Commercial Travelers Association. We were provided with a greater understanding of the buildings history, as Adam explained how the building was like a bunker that housed a war memorial and past furniture of the CTA. Keen to convince us that a type of fungous was a protagonist, Adam proceeded to discuss how a fungus killed and wiped out various organisms. Even more interesting and kind of sad was his story about the bio warfare that occurred within Laos and Cambodia that never actually happened. Here the US investigated a bio attack on the locals by the Russian government. It wasn’t until a third party by chance when investigating the event discovered that this bio warfare was simply bee shit falling in the rain… just happened to be yellow spots of shit on everything. After continuing to discuss the fungi situations around the world Adam finally relayed the relevance of all the fungi discussions. He said well it was simple the buildings shape of a mushroom which is a type of fungi and that we were inhaling fungi, in which previously discussing the fungi related deaths that had killed so many… Nice thought. Having missed this very different discussion, I can only imagine the images that were displayed and the reactions on everyone’s face which I’m sure Adam was after.

“The Dailies” #12 - Thomas Demand

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 02:47:00 -0400

“The Dailies” #12 - Thomas Demand

Sylvia Lavin and Charles Rice/ Exhibition Response

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 02:43:00 -0400

Having not blogged about this conversation between Sylvia Lavin and Charles Rice, I wanted to visit the exhibition and view the interior and exterior spaces though the discussion that were addressed in this talk and the previous one with Demand before I blogged again about the exhibition. First I have to say my experience in viewing the exhibition was kind of creepy yet fun. I felt bazar opening a hotel room but could not wait to see what was on the other side of the door. When I bumped into someone alone on the other side of the door I noticed they felt uncomfortable being in that room as if they were an intruder in my room and rushed out or that there was this awkward moment were we wanted to look around the room yet felt like we shouldn’t.

As for the talk with Sylvia and Charles the relationship between the objects within the interior and the photograph as well as the objects in the exterior caught my eye more that the process of the photographic image. Each room I found myself trying to connect the exterior objects/textures with the objects and textures within the photograph. Almost feeling that I could understand how Demand made the connections between the two and felt an aura when I found the connections. As for the interior objects I found myself noticing the similarities between the various rooms a little creepy, however, I didn’t think about the maid that was previously present as Sylvia discussed in the Demand talk. When I was in the rooms I had to sit on the bed, it was like it was telling me I had to sit down, but, when I did, I felt I had to get up before anyone saw me. The idea that someone could just so easily open the door into “my” room was both weird but I wanted someone too, I almost wanted to wait in one room until someone did, yet, I didn’t have to as a classmate walked in. There was this sort of oh hello – awkward – moment, don’t mind me, and then we continued to look around.

As for the Framing of the interior/ exterior, I found this an interesting discussion more towards the exterior being a frame for the interior, as I did not think of the exterior as a frame but only the interior to the photograph and the photographs frame itself. Had I not attended both of Sylvia’s talks I guess I would have viewed “The Dailies” as more towards demands photographs themselves which would have been a disappointment almost because for me the whole point of the work was not actually the image itself but the surroundings/ relationships and the changes made by those who inhabited the exhibition.

Photo

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:21:13 -0400

Response to Thomas Demand in conversation with Sylvia Lavin

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 05:18:02 -0400

The talk held last Friday night was broken down into two parts by Sylvia, the first part was a discussion of Demand’s current work at the CTA, with the second half discussing Demand and his work in relation to architecture. I found myself more interested with the second half of the talk because here is an artist constructing one to one scale works being compared on the other hand to an architect constructing works which get photographed yet he did not call himself an architect where others would. This was interesting to me, as I had to think about the line between art and architecture that, one might use the others discipline but only calls him self one or the other. In terms of Demand we have him constructing works using paper or cardboard which he knows he will destroy after being photographed. In other words he constructs these works with an easily accessible material to be destroyed and preserved at the same time by photographing them. Architects as the talk discussed, however, do not destroy their paper constructs and tend to keep them. This relationship between the two disciplines (in relation to Thomas); is interesting as one is the other in his works yet he doesn’t consider himself an architect in anyway.

As for part 1 of the talk, in selecting the exhibition for “the dailies”, demand was shown around Sydney only finding the location after wondering alone – the Commercial Travelers Association – being chosen in the end because of the building itself and the society within its walls. Demand even discussed the “new art smell” a term I not only found funny but intriguing when thinking about art, not something I normally think about. Having not yet been to the exhibition, I can only discuss the exhibition in relation to Sylvia’s thoughts about the work. A few points Sylvia discussed were the essence of the artwork being in a hotel. This sense of entering someone else’s home, where someone has slept sleep, as well as the upside down cup that was the same in every room, in which the cleaning ladies presence is made evident within the exhibition. These are just a few things I will look out for when I view Demand’s exhibition.

Photo

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:32:51 -0400

In Response to Andrew Hurle

Fri, 16 Mar 2012 06:30:48 -0400

“English law: The material from which check is made, is irrelevant to the value of the check”

(A, Hurle 2012)

You wouldn’t think about how having an image studies lecture on money could be relevant until you’ve had one. Having never discussed the real form or substance of money before, Andrew Hurles’ lecture on money, forgery and how value is connoted and conveyed made the mind think differently about the subjects of form and image. Not only this, but, the lecture almost wanted to give an in depth history of the issues associated around money, however, time hinders every interesting discussion.

One of the interesting topics Andrew talked about was the different forms money could take. The quote at the beginning of this text is one Andrew relates to a photograph of a cow being used as a check in an English bank. It is a funny and interesting photograph that Andrew uses to grab our attention in these various forms money could take. After discussing the various histories relating to money he goes on to talk about counterfeit money. Using the fact that Banks could be opened and notes created so readily that they would pop up all over the country in the most remote locations thus to create counterfeit notes. There were so many different bank notes floating around in the end that counterfeit money was still as valuable to the owner, as long as it could change hands to the next person.

When you realize in your wallet you have foreign coins you still pass off those coins to the shopkeeper as currency because you know either it is still valuable or that it can pass as an image and form close enough to that of the required currency. This is just one of the analogies Andrew used when discussing how something can be used as money and contain value as long as it could circulate from hand to hand. I learnt the value of a substance was only in terms of the eye of whom wanted that substance, however, money was only named after those substances that could circulate around for another substance. My understanding of this valuing of a substance could only be placed into two categories: 1 that the substance itself was of some importance to the holder or 2 that the substance could be traded for something that was of importance to the holder. I guess in a way you could say that to be a millionaire you only needed to have one thing that was more important than everything else but in turn this would make you poor if it could not circulate

All in all I found Andrew Hurles’ lecture on forgery, money and value, to be a very insightful discussion. Although at first I would not put this with image studies, I found the relation discussed between the representation of money and the actual term to be an interesting relationship to be explored both in money and in other definitions.

Untitled 1974 (Ballet) - Bill Henson

Fri, 09 Mar 2012 04:42:24 -0500

Untitled 1974 (Ballet) - Bill Henson

Response To Judy Annear - A Discussion Of Bill Henson

Fri, 09 Mar 2012 04:38:07 -0500

Where do you begin to write on someone like Bill Henson. Do you need to discuss whether his work is art or not. Or can we just establish that art at least for me, is simply the artists’ way of expressing him or herself. I was lucky enough to attend a lecture last year with Henson himself, I must add that if anyone was to ever gain the chance to hear Henson talk, it is a mind blowing experience. His mind thinks on another level, however, during the Q & A I felt concerned that the first question raised found itself with the subjects and uproar during one of his exhibitions. Expression is expression, let it be what it is.

Henson has been a topic in my art history over the last few years, I find myself connected to his work yet knowing not a thing about him. In the recent lecture series, I was exposed to a talk about Henson, which although I still find myself trying to understand the man, I found myself being able to connect to his work more. The lecture I attended, which was hosted by the senior curator of photography at The Art Gallery of NSW, Judy Annear, discussed not only Henson’s career but also how his images connect with the viewer. The way he uses the space around the gallery and space within the frame for the audience to engage with the work. The untitled images thus to not draw attention or ideas away from the actual work and the variety of subjects that can instigate memories forgotten within the viewer. It was here listening to how he works that I realized, the connection I felt was not with Henson, but with myself. It is the fact that his images, in between the day and night, reminded me of past events, at least the images that my eye catches. It might only be one small subject that reminded me but it felt like a dream state. It is this eeriness about Henson’s work, the fact that I cannot tell if I am viewing a sort of dream state or whether the subjects themselves are experiencing this dream state. Henson is interested and wants viewers to respond with different ideas and feelings that they draw from his images, this is why it is non-narrative, in between and untitled. Although the lecture by Judy left me with a better understanding of Henson, I still have to ask myself, where do you start to write on someone like bill Henson? And I guess after what I have previously heard about Henson, you have to find your connection not with the artist but with the work, because it is here that the artist lives.

“Waiting Game for Sudanese Child” Kevin Carter

Wed, 07 Mar 2012 07:29:35 -0500

“Waiting Game for Sudanese Child” Kevin Carter

Response to Kerstin Hacker's Lecture

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 04:23:15 -0500

The photographers’ role within the visual media world has changed and adapted over the years through the events which have presented themselves. These events have shown photographers that they are responsible for the ideas and changes that their images convey. Kerstin Hacker’s lecture addressed this issue with relation to her work in Africa, showing some of the effects of these images. As western photographers explored the east they photographed what was different from their homeland, but were always influencing the eastern culture with their western style photography. Although this gave the photographer an understanding of various foreign cultures, it did not justify those cultures as a whole. The consequence of this caused the audiences viewing images to believe the image as the truth, of a particular situation, when really it is only the view through the photographers’ eyes. Now, as Kerstin put it, “what we expect to see is not often what we will find”. When photographers photograph situations such as starving children of 3^rd world countries or child soldiers etc., the photographer must realize that they are “gathers of information” (K, Hacker 2012), in which the viewer of their images will understand the situation in relation to the photographer’s image as truth. People too easily believe what they see. Even though it may only be mildly representing a situation, the audience remembers only those images that are shockingly amazing. For example Kevin Carter’s image “Waiting Game for Sudanese Child”, which Kerstin discussed, is a great example of how a situation presented itself to the photographer in which a vulture landed behind the Sudanese child and the connection between the two. When this image was released suddenly the audience cared about the situation. They wanted to know what happened to the child, and, for the photographer to justify why he took the shot. The image changed the viewers’ thoughts about that countries situation simply by the images they were exposed to. Here the photographer learned how much influence the visual media had on the world, and, that they had to justify to themselves where the line was that the photographer stops taking photos and starts helping or simply not to take the shot. That point where they believe their images could be of greater benefit to situation in terms of a global change. Now photographers according to Kerstin are working together in the global visual media market to change the viewers’ ideas on various cultures and events around the world. This is one way to gain a better understanding of the world, as each photographer will react to his environment different to that abroad. However, although this causes the viewer to gain a greater understanding of the various cultures around the world, the only way we can get close enough to understanding the truth about different cultures is if we put down our cameras that tunnels our vision, and simply, listen.