Wow. Now what?

I have no idea what to do with this blog. I started it for my VISA class, but that is done now….and my life just isn’t interesting enough for a blog. Oh well, I guess that I will be like the rick mercer report and just write stupid stuff XD.

Visa Post 9

This is all about the article, “Memory, Visibility, and Public Space: Reflections on Commemoration(s) of 9/11.” by Ekaterina V. Haskins and Justin P. DeRose. This was all about the different ways that9/11 was commemorated. What I found the most catching, for one, is that the cities took away the street memorials. Threw them out like they were garbage that was left behind. I found this amazing. Yes they would eventually have to be taken away as eventually they would begin to rot, ruin, etc depending on what they were, but these meant something. These memorials weren’t just pieces of junk, they were made with care and they spoke out to so many people. They were a display of communal grief for things and for people that would never be there again. What right did the cities have to take these away early? They destroyed someone’s efforts, someone’s memories. These kinds of things are kin to when you see crosses on the roads as your drive or when you see large scale memorials when someone dies tragically – an example would be a school shooting. You don’t just tear those down so what made the 9/11 ones any different? I just didn’t understand that.

I was also grabbed by the written note given to those taking pictures. ” All of you taking photos[.] I wonder if you really see whats [sic] here or if you’re so concerned with getting that perfect shot that you’ve forgotten this is a tragedy site, not a tourist attraction. As [sic] I continually had to move “out of someone’s way” as they carefully tried to frame this place [of] mourning. I kept wondering[,] what makes us think we can capture the pain, the loss, the pride and the confusion—this complexity— into a 4×5 glossy[?]” In a way I agree with them. If you can’t get the emotion, the feeling, the pain and the strength of survivors into the photograph then why take one at all? Unless you can honor those who fell, those who survived, those who helped, and those who lost family and friends in that tragedy then you don’t belong there. I do, however, believe that all or some of that can be caught on film. You may have to spend time looking for ‘the perfect shot’ but you can get it. i think that it only matters what you think is a perfect shot. If it is to exploit, then you are desecrating that place. If it is to honor and to remember, then by all means, take your picture. Pictures are worth a thousand words, or so some people say. I say that they can say so much more than one million words ever could if you just have even one great photograph or painting.

Visa Post 10

Yes, this is out of order but I had some problems that I told Professor Cronin about. I am awaiting some instructions as what to do, so I will skip right to the next post while I wait. This was all about scientific images. The thing that really caught my attention was ‘The Silent Scream” it was done by the anti-abortion movement with Bernard Nathanson. It was a video done using a ultrasound of an abortion taking place. It showed the baby to have a formed body, so that it looked like how people thought of babies, and displayed it screaming and throwing back it’s head in terror as the abortion was happening. What actually happened was the makers speed up the film and edited it so that they made the baby look like it was doing those actions but it really wasn’t. The counter video showing this fact was not well taken by the public as the other video’s emotional impact had already taken root. “The Silent Scream” also used a baby that would be older than one that was being aborted so that people could connect with it. This was a very political move using science. This really has no science in it except for how it was taken as they altered the reality to get a desired reaction. I wondered how anyone believed this. They must have been very uneducated and naive about pregnancy. A baby has no muscle yet, so they would be unable to move their head. They also wouldn’t sense danger, just look at born babies. They fear nothing at all, fear is a learned behavior. Without fear you cannot sense danger as to you there is none. babies also wouldn’t open their mouths in the womb, they do suck their thumbs, but that is near the end of the pregnancy, which is not when a abortion would take place.

This also brings up the abortion debate. I know this has nothing to do with the class content but this is what it made me think of in the world’s context, which I guess is a good thing as i am applying the course to my life. It is my personal belief that abortion is okay in certain circumstances. It is not right if you just don’t want the baby. If it was an accident, well you should have been more careful. Have the baby, and if you don’t want it or can’t take care of it then put it up for adoption, don’t kill it for your mistake. I do agree with abortion in cases of rape, and where the baby is a threat to the mother’s life. In rape, the woman/girl is traumatized enough, they don’t need to go through a forced pregnancy while carrying the child of the rapist. That is just cruel. The mother’s life must be held above that of the child’s, for instance of it was a teen pregnancy and the mother was to small to go through it successfully. Or when they are to ill to go through it. I’m not saying this would be an easy choice, but it is one that has to be made. In a baby or mom pregnancy scenario, I believe that we should always choose the mom’s life. Abortion shouldn’t be because you want to but it should be that you have to.

Visa Post 8

This week we talked about fashion and advertising. What I found most interesting was how text changes the image’s meaning and can perhaps give it one. I have two examples from the text book that I found the most interesting. They are both on page 211. The first image is at the top of 211 and it is an anti-fur campaign. I look at the picture and I see a woman holding a fur coat and there is some kind of stain traveling from it. On it’s own this doesn’t mean much to me but when the words “It takes up to 40 dumb animals to make a fur coat. But only one to wear it.” Were taken into the image I found that there was a whole lot of meaning. First of all, I did not know that it took 40 animals to make one coat. That is just outrageous. I do not, however, have a problem with fur coats if one has used the rest of the animal. Take the Inuit for example, they use the entire animal and the fur when they kill them. It becomes food, fuel and life saving warmth. There is nothing wrong with that as you are not wasting the life of the animal. I have a big problem with those who kill the animal for sport or the fur and then waste the animal’s life. I found that because of the words, this ad summed up my feelings quite nicely as anyone who wastes the animal is dumb. We wouldn’t want someone coming and killing us for our skins but then tossing the rest away. As humans we might think that this is disgusting either way, but why is it okay for us to do this to animals?

The other ad that I really liked was the one on the bottom of page 211. I looked at the picture first and it meant nothing. It was a frying pan, whoopee. Then I read the text. The bold print that you see right away says “Every year thousands of people are killed with a frying pan” and thought ‘what?’ I had no idea that many people were killed with them. I began wondering, do they just pick them up and bash someone’s head in with them? This wasn’t at all what the ad was saying, but it grabbed my attention when I would have normally just ignored the picture of the frying pan. I was then drawn to read the small print and found out that they were really talking about fried foods and their negative health effects. I thought that this was a good way to do it as I would have most likely just passed another health poster by, but this one grabbed my attention.

VISA Post 7

Ugh….so don’t have any time this week. Well, this is all about images in politics. Yippee. First up is propaganda. This is when one takes an image, creates a certain political message in it, and then multiplies it so that everyone can see it. Or it can be a work of art that has political intentions. Either way, who actually believes propaganda? Sure we can see a really heart wrenching image that speaks up against poverty or something, but we still know that it is propaganda. No matter what the intentions, propaganda gives only one point of view – the creators. Whether it is an artist or a company or a political party we still only see what they want us to see in their image. Propaganda can makes us interested in a subject, but I don’t think that it will instantly sway that many people over. Then comes the problem of understanding the propaganda. A lot of propaganda and advertising is really confusing. You stand or sit there looking at this picture trying to figure out what they want you to get from it. Sometimes the image and meaning don’t make any sense because the creator assumes that you have previous knowledge about what they are talking about. Like in the anti-smoking ads, the creators assume that you have seen the original ad that they are changing.

Now there is phenomenology. This is where the effect of an item, such as a photograph, is directly effected by the medium and how you can interact with the item. Therefore, a film and a photograph would have different effects based upon how you can interact with them as a person and as the viewer. I don’t really like this concept. Sure, you can’t pick up a film and look at it, and a photograph will never move unless your in Harry Potter, but that doesn’t change anything. It is whether the image or film given means anything to you. You could see an touching film or photo or artwork but if you don’t connect with the message given or the particular way it has been portrayed, you are not going to get anything out of it. If you do connect, you can get just as much meaning from a photo of something as a film of something. Take ‘Hotel Rwanda’ for example. Great movie, really gets across the tragedy of the Rwandan genocide. It speaks to you. But can you honestly say that seeing a photo of the dead or grieving makes you feel any different? Can you actually say that a photograph of the bodies piled on the streets makes you feel any less or more than the film did when you saw the same thing? I don’t think so, at least I can’t.

Visa 1Q98 Post 6

Woot. Post six. This is all going to be about seminar and what we did then. First of all we talked about the movie that we watched last week. I think that he was exploiting them in some ways. He was exaggerating their culture and making them seem like something that they are not so that we as the viewer would think that they are strange and be fascinated. He was using their culture and their way of life so that he could make a profit off of them. But also, he wasn’t actually doing anything to the individual. The people in his photos were not harmed by this. In this way he wasn’t exploiting them. I don’t think that there can be a clear answer to whether he was exploiting them or not, it is all up to how you view exploitation. The one thing that I am firm on is that the pictures were not a documentary. He staged some of them and added things. Like the photo with the pig, he brought in the pig and asked them to do that. That isn’t a documentary, that is art. All documentaries carry the bias of the person making them – what to shoot, what to keep, who to shoot – but he was going beyond that and making a staged production. I found that the most annoying thing of all.

Then we talked about the internet. Yeah, that was exciting. I definitely think that the internet is just a global marketplace instead of a global community. Just look at all of the online stores out there. Even small physical stores have websites to buy from, and some stores are simply online stores that have warehouses. Also, a lot of times when people have their own web pages or blogs there is advertising on it. Sometimes people are trying to sell their own stuff. An example would be deviantart. It is a place where you can create your own web page and post your art, poems, or novels. And sell them. The market is everywhere online, and since it is multi-directional it makes it a simple and efficient market. I mean, I could potentionaly buy something from Korea even though I could never afford to go there, and then find the one store that I needed. Much more convenient to do it online.

Visa Post 4+5

About post four, I was unable to attend lecture or seminar. So can’t comment on those. Also the reading made little sense to me, and what did make sense was too dull to comment on. So, moving on to this week, I will just make this post really long and hope that it can compensate.

This week we talked about mass media and television. In the texts opinion both of these are bad things. Mass media is seen as derogative and television addicting. Cable is good though as it lets large areas communicate with other large areas that are not so close geographically speaking. This way potentially everyone in the world can see the same programs and be kept up to date on the same issues. Woot. Then there is the addicting, or narcotic as the book calls it, effect of television. I agree. Television (here on tv) is very addicting. however it isn’t the physical box know as a tv that is the addicting part. No one stares at a blank tv because they just can’t miss staring at that blank tv. That is a whole other unrelated issue. What it means is that the programs on the tv which you see in your home through the wonders of science are addicting. like, for instance, Grey’s Anatomy. Personally I hate the show. Snooze fest just waiting to happen. The masses however love it. I know a lot of people who just have to watch that show every time it’s on and heaven forbid if it isn’t. They just don’t know what to do then. I personally am addicted (in a lesser degree) to other shows that aren’t as popular as some. It really does become a major part of your weekly life. This also has negative effects just like an addiction. You can easily get fat, slack off or you become so influenced by what you watch that you in turn try to become what you watch. It is also instant entertainment, no work involved in it. Just like with drugs – they are instant gratification, no work involved (I know what your thinking, get you mind out of there!!!!). Voila, the perfect recipe for one addicting substance. Cable is also relatively cheap compared to other forms of entertainment so bonus.

Then is mass media. Why has this become derogatory? Is it derogatory? I think yes, and I think that it always has been derogatory. It is negative to so many things, and since it is mass media it tries to appeal to the majority while ignoring all of the little sub groups. It also takes for granted that the people in the majority can be so influenced by it that whatever the purpose was it will be met.  Then there is the content itself. It is so derogatory and negative to women out there, for example. It tells us that we have to be so skinny, so tall, and dressed this way or that. I mean, shove off already! another way that it is derogatory is if you yourself are an artist. If someone calls, or compare your work to, mass media then they are basically saying that you are unoriginal.  Mass media follows trends so devotedly that it basically just copies itself, meaning that the artist merely copied what was popular. I would be insulted if anyone ever said that to me about my artworks.

VISA 1Q98 post 3

Yay! Last post for today and I am caught up. This week we watched a movie about a theory created and proved by David Hockney. It was called, surprisingly, David Hockney: Secret Knowledge. I thought this theory was absolutely brilliant. I totally agree with him. His evidence was good – he even had a scientist – and when he redid the paintings I found that it convinced me even more. I also acknowledge that the film was only so long and did not show all of his proof. I would really like to read his book, but I don’t remember what it was called. *sigh* I also think that this theory makes a lot of sense just in principle. I for one have always wondered how they got such amazing pictures. This also makes me think ‘Wow. I guess that is what people really looked like’. It answered a lot of questions.

Now this, if we call it true – which I think it is – brings into question whether they were really masters or not. This has nothing to do with their painting talent. This was just them getting the outline. They still painted it. It is like modern computers and art programs. The computer does the work but the artist still has to use the technology properly and their talent to achieve the finished product. I don’t think this discredits their talent at all. I think that this just shows how smart they were. They were using their ingenuity and should be praised. This also brings into question tracing. Tracing, in itself, is an art. This is harder to do than we think. Sometimes you trace and it comes out nothing alike. I know quite a few people who cannot trace worth beans. Also, the mirror and lens technique does not necessarily mean tracing. The artist is creating a painting based upon a stable image. I think that this makes a lot of sense, it is a type of reference drawing which happens a lot today.

VISA 1Q98 post 2

One down, two to go. What is the deal with the camera obscura? I have used a pin hole camera which is the modern version of the camera obscura and the pictures that come out are negatives. Light is dark and dark is light. It is still quite nifty though. What I don’t understand is how the heck does a dark building with a tiny hole in the wall make a camera? There was no photo paper – though that would be huge – and the artist or whoever was using had to draw the picture. So is this really a camera or an artists tool? I think that this is really all up to opinion.

We also talked about how the original art work has an aura around it. I say that it is awe. Say, for instance, that you are standing in the Sistine Chapel. You look up and are like, OMG I’m standing in the Sistine chapel looking at Michaelangelo’s ceiling! Jump for joy! But you can look at a reproduction of the ceiling and still feel the emotion, the power from the piece. All these emotions are in the brush strokes, the way it is painted and what you, the viewer, connect with it. Some paintings you feel nothing for. When I look at Picasso I feel nothing. I just feel insulted for the models and think ‘If he ever painted me like that I would be so insulted and angry.’ I think that this aura idea is just what we ourselves get from the artwork and the awe that we feel when facing the real thing. After all, when we go to see the Mona Lisa, chances are that we are seeing a reproduction. Yet we still feel the aura don’t we?

VISA 1Q98 post 1

I finally got this working and will be writing many posts at once so, here goes. *deep breath*. This was the week that we had a guest speaker. He was the architect who designed the Plaza building at Brock. In my opinion he was one of the worst public speakers that I have ever gone to see, and I have seen some pretty bad ones. Near the end of the lecture all I can really remember is that he said ‘um’ and ‘vernacular’ a lot. He also talked a lot about his family in Nova Scotia and how they have been there for 400 years. I have absolutely no idea how that is even relevant to the plaza building at Brock. he showed a lot of pictures of what he has done which was good. Thumbs up. Visuals, especially his, let us understand what the heck the presenter is talking about. Even though I found all of his buildings really ugly and completely impractical I could see where he was coming from. The only problems I had in that regard are:

1) He said that one of his clients had been sexually abused and needed a place where she would feel safe. Okay. So he builds a lean to that has one wall completely made out of glass and says that the way the roof came over top of the glass wall made a protective feeling. Yeah….alright. A glass wall to me spells out vulnerability and exposure. I would never feel completely safe in that house as it was way to open and, well, not safe. That did not make sense to me at all.

2) He had a shorter client whose husband was away frequently and she didn’t like large looming spaces. So he shrinks everything in the space to suit her. This would be fine, except that the husband does eventually come home. What then? Does he just have to live with feeling squashed and cramped? What does he feel when he comes home? I will never know as the architect did not tell us – he barely even mentioned the husband.

3) His obsession with making ugly buildings. Yeah, the vernacular is a large part of the world and it isn’t going to go away. This does not mean that we need to make the world even uglier, or that it will someday become beautiful through more ugly buildings. He also mentioned that their new office was going to be in a more rundown part of Halifax. I say good for him. Maybe the building will fit in there and people won’t mind it being so ugly.