"Key to understanding photography is through intuition and memory... should not think of photos as realism"
- Argues that when we read a photograph, we use our intellect (the bit of our brain in tune with ideology, culture, representation etc) this is the "polite gaze" (Studium) that Barthes talked about. It is the intuition, the bit of our brain which acts unconsciously to our own experiences- the punctum of a photo. This is furthered later on; in a photo with movement, the intellect knows that it is "not real", a representation, while our intuition reacts to this movement, and knows that the movement is real in that it did happen and we are still seeing it. These are two ways of reading and understanding a photograph. This is an interesting distinction in understanding the way we read a photograph; I had never considered that there might be a difference between knowing and understanding a photo- which I think is her point?
- Argues that "there could not be new media without old media", and that everything has evolved down to digital numbers, but this does not mean it looses social, economical and representation power- it has evolved, not changed.
-Two forms of memory; habitual and the remembering of a unique event. Photography needs both to be understood; you can see a photo as a unique event, as it is a unique take of a second of reality, while it is the habitual memory, which recounts things about the photo, the reality of that time, understands the representation, which is used too. This means in reading a photo we are understanding reality and understanding it is a representation, both virtual and real etc. Barthes argues that: Here, the image mediates between memory and perception, the virtual and the actual,
the past and the present. Properly speaking, it constitutes both kinds. But once memory has been actualised, there is no going back. Barthes might know the Winter Garden Photograph for a memory, but the memory (pure) is not in the image. ‘‘To picture is not to remember’’ (173), but to perceive.
-Basically argues for a long time that theory on how to read a photo has not moved on in years, and that this is because intellect has made it a habit to read in this way, and we should be relying on intuition (which is uninhibited and unrepresented) to understand photos further.
I quite like this as a theory; I like the ideas that we need to change or revise our way of looking; to me, this is exciting and worthwhile. In terms of my project, I think maybe a new way of looking is from someones reality; using photography to make the eyes of someone else. Not sure how you would do this, but want to use this reading.
S J Kay:
"To Live is to be photographed", the "flow of images is unstoppable." Talks about how photographs can be read in lots of different ways, and that it is the "photographers script" to direct people in what to believe. Also says that how a photo affects us (intellectual, physical, intuitively) is not changed by new technology.
Photography Installations
I have been looking at some of the more unusual ways that I might display a large amount of photos, because my photo projeact will have lots and lots of photos hopefully. There are lots of creative ways which are not just sticking a photo to a wall. (sticking to a wall seems so 2D) Other than the hundreds of interactive galleries online (interactive meaning anything from being able to change the photo at will, to being able to change/"go inside" a photo) there are also some creative "real" ways to show a photo gallery, as Annette Messager has shown (below)
This is visually interesting and suggests these body parts add together to make a whole; (the planet) I liked this, because it uses photographic montage to create a whole, and because if i saw this in an art gallery, it would be the first thing I would go to, and the thing I would spend longest looking at.I want to create something smilair. It doesnt look too hard to make either!
No comments:
Post a Comment