Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon was originally created to make prisoners behave as though they are constantly under surveillance. But to Michel Foucault, “The Panopticon must not be understood as a dream building: it is the diagram of a mechanism of power reduced to its ideal form… it is in fact a figure of political technology that may and must be detached from any specific use” (68). While an establishment designed to make prisoners feel as though they are under constant supervision sounds like a good idea, this genius concept isn’t favored by Foucault when it is used in everyday life. Foucault ends his essay on Panopticism by posing the question, “Is it surprising that prisons resemble factories, schools, barracks, hospitals, which all resemble prisons?” (70). The Panopticon only magnifies the fact that society is divided into two groups: the watcher and the watched. This division of society can be seen in nearly all institutions. Schools, hospitals and businesses all function based on the notion that you are under supervision and therefore must behave at all times.
However, in decade run by You Tube and Facebook it is sometimes hard to believe that people don’t like being watched. You Tube is home to millions of moments of stupidity and absurdity caught on film, and Facebook displays millions of pictures and thoughts for the world to see. I think it is safe to say that some people love attention and wish their entire lives could be viewed by the world. So then what is the difference between Bentham’s Panopticon and uploading your life onto You Tube? I believe that two main factors come into play here: the fear of consequence and the ability to choose when to be seen. In classrooms and at work, when we are watched we know that our actions have a chance of receiving consequences. In these settings when we act as though we are being watched, we are behaving carefully so that we do not get into trouble. But when we post videos or pictures for people to view on the Internet, we are expecting to get a reaction, not receive a consequence. While filming a You Tube video or posing for a picture that will knowingly appear on Facebook, most people aren’t thinking, “I hope this doesn’t get me into trouble.” Most people think more along the lines of, “I hope people will think this is funny.” Besides not fearing consequence, with You Tube and Facebook, people can choose when they are seen and what they are seen doing. Being under constant surveillance can be tiring, as people don’t feel free to fully act as themselves. No one wants to be caught doing something unethical or stupid. But when people post images or videos online, they are only seen doing something that they want to be seen doing. The attention received is welcomed rather than feared. So although today’s society seems to love being watched, if people weren’t in control of what part of their lives were made public, the concept of being watched would change drastically.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
"The Long Zoom"
In Steven Johnson's article "The Long Zoom" he starts out by defining what the long zoom actually is. It is a point of view, so to speak, or a way of viewing that we are familiar with. It is understanding the basic parts of something so that we can put them together to understand the whole thing.
Johnson, for example, uses the idea of starting in outerspace and traveling all the way forward until we can link it to the DNA in a person's body. It has become a relevant idea for this generation, allowing us to make connections like that while being able to see them through various forms of media.
Johnson focuses the article on game-creator Will Wright (creator of the Sims and SimCity). Wright is working on a game called Spore which would allow players to create and colonize their own planet. Like the Sims, it will be complex, allowing playes to get an idea of things like food chains and ecosystems. The game seems to be all about balance. Of his game, Wright says, " What you are doing in Spore is layer by layer creating an entire world that at the end of the day is entirely yours."
So what's the big deal, you ask? Players would get to play a game that challenges them but also shows them how these delicate balances in things like atmosphere work. Johnson sayys in Spore you get to create everything: "cell, creature, tribe, city, civilization, and space." If anyone can make a game about accurately sustaining a new planet, it's Will Wright.
Johnson, for example, uses the idea of starting in outerspace and traveling all the way forward until we can link it to the DNA in a person's body. It has become a relevant idea for this generation, allowing us to make connections like that while being able to see them through various forms of media.
Johnson focuses the article on game-creator Will Wright (creator of the Sims and SimCity). Wright is working on a game called Spore which would allow players to create and colonize their own planet. Like the Sims, it will be complex, allowing playes to get an idea of things like food chains and ecosystems. The game seems to be all about balance. Of his game, Wright says, " What you are doing in Spore is layer by layer creating an entire world that at the end of the day is entirely yours."
So what's the big deal, you ask? Players would get to play a game that challenges them but also shows them how these delicate balances in things like atmosphere work. Johnson sayys in Spore you get to create everything: "cell, creature, tribe, city, civilization, and space." If anyone can make a game about accurately sustaining a new planet, it's Will Wright.
Baudrillard Response
The definition of real is “that of which it is possible to give an equivalent reproduction,” and taking that further, “that which is always already reproduced” is hyperreal. Baudrillard says that hyperrealism is a limitation. He goes on to say that reality doesn’t even really exist anymore; it’s dead. Now there is the principle of simulation that creates only the appearance of reality and not reality at all. I would say that reality is still a big part of our society though. We like to read fiction and watch movies that are not depictions of reality, created for the audience’s viewing pleasure. I don’t know, we also like to fantasize and imagine things because when it comes down to it, yes, reality can suck.
“The real is produced from miniaturized units, from matrices, memory banks and command models—and with these it can be reproduced an indefinite number of times. It no longer has to be rational, since it is no longer measured against some ideal or negative instance. It is nothing more than operational…no longer real at all.” Baudrillard talks about substituting signs of real for the real itself. This goes along with the use of mechanisms that are programmatic, such as Photoshop or GIMP when referring to images. It makes me think about when I use programs such as this after taking a photo that I am no longer keeping it “real.” If it was originally in color and I change it to black and white and mess with the contrast, I’m changing the image to be something different, something mechanical or imaginary. But, this doesn’t mean that the real doesn’t need to be reproduced. Photographers try to capture what is “real” when they take an image, much like in the documentary we watched.
I do think that the world of digital media and such has become more popular and is starting to infringe on our reality. That is what I believe the Disneyland reference he mentioned relates to: an imaginary world in our real world. And it is a very popular place for people to go. I guess it is not surprising that people really want to escape their “reality” though for a while, but I appreciate the real things in life that can happen, however, society may not always agree. This just reminds me of the Dove Campaigns too and how they create a beautiful image from a “regular girl.” How do we know what is real anymore?
“The real is produced from miniaturized units, from matrices, memory banks and command models—and with these it can be reproduced an indefinite number of times. It no longer has to be rational, since it is no longer measured against some ideal or negative instance. It is nothing more than operational…no longer real at all.” Baudrillard talks about substituting signs of real for the real itself. This goes along with the use of mechanisms that are programmatic, such as Photoshop or GIMP when referring to images. It makes me think about when I use programs such as this after taking a photo that I am no longer keeping it “real.” If it was originally in color and I change it to black and white and mess with the contrast, I’m changing the image to be something different, something mechanical or imaginary. But, this doesn’t mean that the real doesn’t need to be reproduced. Photographers try to capture what is “real” when they take an image, much like in the documentary we watched.
I do think that the world of digital media and such has become more popular and is starting to infringe on our reality. That is what I believe the Disneyland reference he mentioned relates to: an imaginary world in our real world. And it is a very popular place for people to go. I guess it is not surprising that people really want to escape their “reality” though for a while, but I appreciate the real things in life that can happen, however, society may not always agree. This just reminds me of the Dove Campaigns too and how they create a beautiful image from a “regular girl.” How do we know what is real anymore?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The Idea of Pure Image
After watching the documentary on Shelby Lee Adam’s photographs of the Appalachian people, I was really compelled on the differencing of opinions. One said that adding too much style takes away from the purity of image while the other professed that an image no matter how you look at is true, stylized or not. For class we also had to read Bryson’s article “The Natural Attitude”, which offered a very interesting idea of what an image can and should represent. Personally, I tend to side with the ideal that no matter what an image is, it will always carry some kind of connotation or style behind it so therefore it will never be completely pure but it does bare some truth.
As a student, I’ve heard the phrase “A picture is worth a thousand words” multiple times from teachers. This phrase plays perfectly into the idea that an image/picture will never be completely true; it will always have some sort of meaning. An artist or photographer cannot realistically hold back someone else’s or even their own interpretation of an image or painting. Bryson comments on this in his article “The struggle towards perfection is recognized as long and arduous: the Essential Copy, if it were ever achieved, would possess no stylistic features, since the simulacrum would at last have purged away all traces of the productive process” (pg 27). This struggle for perfection that Bryson’s discussed prevents an image from being without objectivity, actually in his vision an image becomes more subject as it is created.
In regards to the documentary, Shelby Adam’s images portrayed the truth even though they were stylized to a point. Adam’s views of his photos were respectful and elegant to a way while his opposition viewed it as a way to further the negative stereotypes. I believe that Adam did nothing wrong in his photographs, the Appalachian people were portrayed how they are. It was not Adam’s intention to portray them in a negative way but to portray a truth to a sense of who they were. The negative connotations were not of Adam’s own mindset but more so dependent on the audience.
Finally, going back to the phrase “A picture is worth a thousand words”, there is no way to think of every different meaning of a picture. No matter how a picture/ image are created there will always be some difference of interpretation. We don’t question an image of Martin Luther King Jr. professing his need of freedom for African Americans as powerful and inspirational but, we question the authenticity of an image that pictures the Appalachian people being proud and humble people? Both of these images carry meaning and should be considered truthful to a point. The key phrase in this sentence is “ To a point” an image will never be a perfect copy or replication of the subject but still should be accepted.
As a student, I’ve heard the phrase “A picture is worth a thousand words” multiple times from teachers. This phrase plays perfectly into the idea that an image/picture will never be completely true; it will always have some sort of meaning. An artist or photographer cannot realistically hold back someone else’s or even their own interpretation of an image or painting. Bryson comments on this in his article “The struggle towards perfection is recognized as long and arduous: the Essential Copy, if it were ever achieved, would possess no stylistic features, since the simulacrum would at last have purged away all traces of the productive process” (pg 27). This struggle for perfection that Bryson’s discussed prevents an image from being without objectivity, actually in his vision an image becomes more subject as it is created.
In regards to the documentary, Shelby Adam’s images portrayed the truth even though they were stylized to a point. Adam’s views of his photos were respectful and elegant to a way while his opposition viewed it as a way to further the negative stereotypes. I believe that Adam did nothing wrong in his photographs, the Appalachian people were portrayed how they are. It was not Adam’s intention to portray them in a negative way but to portray a truth to a sense of who they were. The negative connotations were not of Adam’s own mindset but more so dependent on the audience.
Finally, going back to the phrase “A picture is worth a thousand words”, there is no way to think of every different meaning of a picture. No matter how a picture/ image are created there will always be some difference of interpretation. We don’t question an image of Martin Luther King Jr. professing his need of freedom for African Americans as powerful and inspirational but, we question the authenticity of an image that pictures the Appalachian people being proud and humble people? Both of these images carry meaning and should be considered truthful to a point. The key phrase in this sentence is “ To a point” an image will never be a perfect copy or replication of the subject but still should be accepted.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Response to Bryson's "The natural attitude"
Bryson writes about how "the ancient tale sees painting as faced with a task of enormous magnitude: it is to depict everything - gods, men, beasts, things; 'groves, woods, forests, hills, fish-pools, conduits, and drains, riverets, with their banks, and whatsoever a man would wish to see.' The problem lies in the task - its performance, its infinity of possible subject matter, its manual difficulty - but not in the means by which the task is to be performed. Painting itself has no problematic. The difficulties confronted by the painter are executive and concern the fidelity of his registration of the world before him...resurrect exists out there..." (25). I found this to be one of the most powerful passages from Bryson's text. It shows that in the past, painting was viewed as having a huge effect on people and what they could see, using imagination or thoughts that came from within to paint for the audience.
There is so much that could be painted and some artists I think painted from what came from within them, what God helped them to see. Others painted things that were new and exciting. Bryson thinks that an image is substituted for the real. This means that an image doesn't necessarily reflect reality; art is an abstract of Reality. Using lots of colors or adding more to a painting than what you see just adds an "awe" factor for those who look at it. It is an expression of more than what is actually being said and there is nothing wrong with that.
Even though he states the dominant aim of the image is the natural attitude, sometimes when you look at a painting or a photograph, there is nothing natural about it. I take pictures and when I do, I try to capture people doing what they do, but once someone knows there is a camera, they pose or try to look "cool" and not stupid when other people could see these later. The goal is to try to capture everything in it's "real form" and natural state, but sometimes it is impossible. When an artist draws something, it is set up for them or they add their own spin to their work so it can be recognized. This is the abstract of Reality and I understand it very well.
There is so much that could be painted and some artists I think painted from what came from within them, what God helped them to see. Others painted things that were new and exciting. Bryson thinks that an image is substituted for the real. This means that an image doesn't necessarily reflect reality; art is an abstract of Reality. Using lots of colors or adding more to a painting than what you see just adds an "awe" factor for those who look at it. It is an expression of more than what is actually being said and there is nothing wrong with that.
Even though he states the dominant aim of the image is the natural attitude, sometimes when you look at a painting or a photograph, there is nothing natural about it. I take pictures and when I do, I try to capture people doing what they do, but once someone knows there is a camera, they pose or try to look "cool" and not stupid when other people could see these later. The goal is to try to capture everything in it's "real form" and natural state, but sometimes it is impossible. When an artist draws something, it is set up for them or they add their own spin to their work so it can be recognized. This is the abstract of Reality and I understand it very well.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Response to Barthes
Being in the fast pace society of today, we are constantly bombarded by advertisements and other images by the media. It is our job as the viewer to digest each one of the messages and decide how we really feel about them. In “The Rhetoric of Image” by Roland Barthes, Barthes discussed how we as the audience go through our processes to break down these images. He broke down an image into three main parts: linguistic, coded iconic and finally non-coded iconic. Linguistic refers to the text attached to an image commonly used in captions. Coded iconic is the idea that each image has as cultural interpretation, this I commonly where the hidden message are developed. Finally, there is non-coded iconic images which are images that are what they are with no hidden messages or attached meanings.
Personally, Barthe’s ideas that each image has linguistic value, coded iconic and non-coded processes really spoke to me. Like I stated above, our society is so fast paced that it is almost impossible to not encounter some sort of image or advertisement in a day. Going into public relations/marketing it will be my job in the future to produce these images. I will eventually have to provoke some sort of response by an audience using these three concepts. I actually have a lot of fun breaking down an ad and trying to determine the hidden meanings behind it all. The funny thing is you can do it with almost any image, especially advertisements. Barthes’ made a good point about these hidden messages by saying, “…we never encounter (at least in advertising) a literal image in pure state” (38). I completely agree with this statement, it’s rare to find an advertisement without some sort of hidden meaning. This isn’t a bad thing either; it challenges us as consumers of an image to basically ask why did the producer use this and what are the hidden meanings. It actually makes us better consumers when we are able to interpret and find what is really being said in the image.
In conclusion, Barthes ideas behind the meaning of many images presented to us in our everyday life is really interesting. The idea the each image can be divided or more so defined by linguistic meanings, coded and non-coded iconic meanings really helps to understand some of the ideas and reasoning why some images are created.
Personally, Barthe’s ideas that each image has linguistic value, coded iconic and non-coded processes really spoke to me. Like I stated above, our society is so fast paced that it is almost impossible to not encounter some sort of image or advertisement in a day. Going into public relations/marketing it will be my job in the future to produce these images. I will eventually have to provoke some sort of response by an audience using these three concepts. I actually have a lot of fun breaking down an ad and trying to determine the hidden meanings behind it all. The funny thing is you can do it with almost any image, especially advertisements. Barthes’ made a good point about these hidden messages by saying, “…we never encounter (at least in advertising) a literal image in pure state” (38). I completely agree with this statement, it’s rare to find an advertisement without some sort of hidden meaning. This isn’t a bad thing either; it challenges us as consumers of an image to basically ask why did the producer use this and what are the hidden meanings. It actually makes us better consumers when we are able to interpret and find what is really being said in the image.
In conclusion, Barthes ideas behind the meaning of many images presented to us in our everyday life is really interesting. The idea the each image can be divided or more so defined by linguistic meanings, coded and non-coded iconic meanings really helps to understand some of the ideas and reasoning why some images are created.
While reading "Rhetoric of the Image" by Roland Barthes, we learn that every image is a re-presentation of something that already exists. Barthes even argues that some people believe that images come nowhere as close to conveying an image as actual language can do. However, for some reason, we see many images today, both familiar and unfamiliar, that we can derive meaning from.
Barthes goes on to explain that every image can convey meaning to us in three different ways: linguistic, coded iconic messages, and non-coded iconic messages.
Linguistic meanings come from things such as captions on the actual image of even just text on the labels of the things being presented in the image. Like Barthes says, these captions of words included in the images are important because they convey meanings or explain things the actual image might not represent to us. For example, in the Panzani advertisement for Italian food, we read words written in French, which signals that this is not American cuisine (34).
The coded iconic messages refer to the actual image itself. For example, in the Panzani ad we see images of noodles, tomatoes, peppers, sauces and so on. We see colors we consider to be indicative of Italy. Therefore, we image ourselves shopping for fresh produce in a market in Italy where we might be preparing a meal for our family. Because the images are somewhat familiar to us, we can draw other conclusions not soley based on what we see.
Finally, non-coded iconic messages represent a sort of "it is what it is" mentality. We see the same noodles, tomatoes, peppers and so on and think "oh, that is an image of noodles, tomatoes, and peppers coming out of a bag". There is no other meaning other than what we actually see (34).
It is definitely important to be aware of how we derive meaning form the images we see, becuase we hundreds of images every day. If we were driving down the highway looking at billboards without text, we might never get any meaning out of any of them. It is interesting to consider how important the details are in images, because one minor mistake could send the viewer in the wrong direction and the purpose of the image would have failed.
Barthes goes on to explain that every image can convey meaning to us in three different ways: linguistic, coded iconic messages, and non-coded iconic messages.
Linguistic meanings come from things such as captions on the actual image of even just text on the labels of the things being presented in the image. Like Barthes says, these captions of words included in the images are important because they convey meanings or explain things the actual image might not represent to us. For example, in the Panzani advertisement for Italian food, we read words written in French, which signals that this is not American cuisine (34).
The coded iconic messages refer to the actual image itself. For example, in the Panzani ad we see images of noodles, tomatoes, peppers, sauces and so on. We see colors we consider to be indicative of Italy. Therefore, we image ourselves shopping for fresh produce in a market in Italy where we might be preparing a meal for our family. Because the images are somewhat familiar to us, we can draw other conclusions not soley based on what we see.
Finally, non-coded iconic messages represent a sort of "it is what it is" mentality. We see the same noodles, tomatoes, peppers and so on and think "oh, that is an image of noodles, tomatoes, and peppers coming out of a bag". There is no other meaning other than what we actually see (34).
It is definitely important to be aware of how we derive meaning form the images we see, becuase we hundreds of images every day. If we were driving down the highway looking at billboards without text, we might never get any meaning out of any of them. It is interesting to consider how important the details are in images, because one minor mistake could send the viewer in the wrong direction and the purpose of the image would have failed.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Rhetoric of the Image
In Roland Barthes’ essay Rhetoric of the Image, the way in which we see and interpret images are broken down into three parts: linguistic, coded iconic, and non-coded iconic. Barthes breaks images down in this way, defining linguistic as the text attached to the image, the coded iconic as the cultural interpretation of the image, and the non-coded iconic as the image itself with no meanings attached. However, Barthes argues that people recognize the coded and non-coded iconic forms of images at the same time, making the latter of the two impossible.
According to Barthes, “…we never encounter (at least in advertising) a literal image in a pure state. Even if a totally ‘naïve’ image were to be achieved, it would immediately join the sign of naivety and be completed by a third—symbolic—message. Thus the characteristics of all literal messages cannot be substantial but only relational” (pg 38). I agree with Barthes and would go so far as to say that we never see an image in a pure state, no matter if it’s in advertising or in daily life. Everything that we see has some sort of meaning attached to it. Just walking down the street, people are reading each other in a connotative manner. Being tall, short, fat, skinny, a male, or a female all has some sort of connotative meaning that people immediately think of. Rather than seeing a physically fit man standing on the sidewalk wearing a suit, someone is more likely to see a successful business man who is probably smart, wealthy, and works out. It is human nature to want to know about a person and be able to fit that person into a certain category, and society gives us the tools to do just that.
Even if a person were on a secluded beach watching the sun set, she wouldn’t only see the sun setting for what it is, but she would attach other meanings to it. Beauty, serenity, the end of a day, relaxation—all of these words and feelings would overtake her. But even though these words are all attached to a sunset, they really have nothing to do with the sunset itself. Literally, a sunset results from the earth’s rotation. It has nothing to do with beauty or serenity; it’s just a natural event that happens every day. But humans have a tendency to give everything meaning or something to be associated with, and these associations stick and become second nature. It is for this reason that Barthes is correct—we can never encounter a literal image in a pure state. By instinct, people will always add a connotative meaning.
According to Barthes, “…we never encounter (at least in advertising) a literal image in a pure state. Even if a totally ‘naïve’ image were to be achieved, it would immediately join the sign of naivety and be completed by a third—symbolic—message. Thus the characteristics of all literal messages cannot be substantial but only relational” (pg 38). I agree with Barthes and would go so far as to say that we never see an image in a pure state, no matter if it’s in advertising or in daily life. Everything that we see has some sort of meaning attached to it. Just walking down the street, people are reading each other in a connotative manner. Being tall, short, fat, skinny, a male, or a female all has some sort of connotative meaning that people immediately think of. Rather than seeing a physically fit man standing on the sidewalk wearing a suit, someone is more likely to see a successful business man who is probably smart, wealthy, and works out. It is human nature to want to know about a person and be able to fit that person into a certain category, and society gives us the tools to do just that.
Even if a person were on a secluded beach watching the sun set, she wouldn’t only see the sun setting for what it is, but she would attach other meanings to it. Beauty, serenity, the end of a day, relaxation—all of these words and feelings would overtake her. But even though these words are all attached to a sunset, they really have nothing to do with the sunset itself. Literally, a sunset results from the earth’s rotation. It has nothing to do with beauty or serenity; it’s just a natural event that happens every day. But humans have a tendency to give everything meaning or something to be associated with, and these associations stick and become second nature. It is for this reason that Barthes is correct—we can never encounter a literal image in a pure state. By instinct, people will always add a connotative meaning.
Response to Barthes' "Rhetoric of the Image"
Barthes talks about the image and how "...the image is felt to be weak in the respect of meaning: there are those who think that the image is an extremely rudimentary system in comparison with language and those who think that signification cannot exhaust the image's ineffable richness."
A photograph should offer us three messages: a linguistic message, a coded iconic message, and a non-coded iconic message. The linguistic message refers to the words in or around an image that help to explain the photograph one is looking at. Barthes says that in today's society, it seems every image is presented with a text to explain a photograph; this could be a title or a caption. I would completely agree with this. I've taken photography classes for the last 3 years and in every critique I've had, the professor has asked me to name a photo or series of photos to describe something about them. I never think to do that as I'm taking the pictures or even how they all fit together until after they are finished in photoshop and in front of me. I feel like things could be interpreted the wrong way without a title or explanation with it, hence artist statements, but at the same time I do think that an image speaks volumes on its own. There shouldn't need to be a caption unless the "artist" wants to convey a specific message. I like the idea of people getting what they want out of a photo and seeing something different than the person who looks at it after them. In news and advertisements, I agree that photos should be presented with text, but not when it comes to art, but that is because you only want to convey one message.
He makes references to the literal image and the symbolic image when it comes to advertising. I would consider the literal image to be that one message you get because of your experiences and the symbolic one to be taken any way, or more than one way, as you look at it. I agree that everything is constructed. You may not think about how it is when you take a picture, but there is meaning behind why you took that picture and why you stood in that spot, at that angle and chose to take it at that moment. Culture is a huge part of what happens when an image is constructed. There are certain things you can do and cannot, even as you try to do something no one has ever done before. You must start with the trend before you move on to something new. Ideas are created by our experiences in culture.
A photograph should offer us three messages: a linguistic message, a coded iconic message, and a non-coded iconic message. The linguistic message refers to the words in or around an image that help to explain the photograph one is looking at. Barthes says that in today's society, it seems every image is presented with a text to explain a photograph; this could be a title or a caption. I would completely agree with this. I've taken photography classes for the last 3 years and in every critique I've had, the professor has asked me to name a photo or series of photos to describe something about them. I never think to do that as I'm taking the pictures or even how they all fit together until after they are finished in photoshop and in front of me. I feel like things could be interpreted the wrong way without a title or explanation with it, hence artist statements, but at the same time I do think that an image speaks volumes on its own. There shouldn't need to be a caption unless the "artist" wants to convey a specific message. I like the idea of people getting what they want out of a photo and seeing something different than the person who looks at it after them. In news and advertisements, I agree that photos should be presented with text, but not when it comes to art, but that is because you only want to convey one message.
He makes references to the literal image and the symbolic image when it comes to advertising. I would consider the literal image to be that one message you get because of your experiences and the symbolic one to be taken any way, or more than one way, as you look at it. I agree that everything is constructed. You may not think about how it is when you take a picture, but there is meaning behind why you took that picture and why you stood in that spot, at that angle and chose to take it at that moment. Culture is a huge part of what happens when an image is constructed. There are certain things you can do and cannot, even as you try to do something no one has ever done before. You must start with the trend before you move on to something new. Ideas are created by our experiences in culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)