In the podcast, i felt certain points that were brought up to be pretty interesting. For example the notion of deciphering photos. I wondered what that meant. What does it mean to decipher photos? Then Jeff talked a little about perception and i thought about it. I guess people perceive photos differently, just like how we would all have different opinions about certain issues. We all interpret photos differently as well and i never really thought about that when i look at photographs, i don't consciously ask myself what i feel about a photo.
Normally i would just look at it, and feel the emotions that are invoked. It's something that happens at a more subconscious level.
He also talked about how our world is increasingly image-oriented. We use pictures and photos to show alot of things and use them to send out different imgaes. Which i agree with. Advertisements that work are always those with visual elements and which strike the viewers to leave a lasting impression. I feel that visuals are very powerful for the mere reason that they invoke emotions within us.
Pointer Question:
On the topic of conceptual photography, i wiki-ed the definition and this came up.
"Conceptual photography is a photography genre in which the artists makes a photograph of a concept or idea. Usually the conception of the idea precedes the realization of the photography. This kind of photography often involves use of computer editing, to achieve the desired effects."
It's pretty interesting because in his podcast, Jeff mentioned that photography is about manipulation and here we have a definition that states that this genre of photography requires (maybe not always) some form of manipulation. To me, this is where the line blurs between photography and art. Photography then becomes not just about capturing moments in time, but rather the emotions captures are further enhanced and there is an agenda behind the photo, a certain message that is constructed and presented to the viewer. In conceptual photography, i feel that the camera acts as a tool, a sort of paintbrush that paints a picture, and the artist touches up the picture to suit the desired effect he wants to bring out.
In the age of the digital revolution, it is becoming easier to manipulate photographs and thus i would think that more and more people would become interested in this form of photography. I count myself as one of them.
Photographer: Moholy-Nagy
Again, i wiki-ed my chosen option, just to find out more about this photographer at a glance. Honestly i chose him because i found his name unique. Anyway here's what is said about him.
"László Moholy-Nagy (Hungarian pronunciation: [ˈlaːsloː ˈmoholiˌnɒɟ]), July 20, 1895 – November 24, 1946) was a Hungarian painter and photographer as well as professor in the Bauhaus school. He was highly influenced by constructivism and a strong advocate of the integration of technology and industry into the arts."
It seems that his work ties in with the concept of conceptual photograpphy as well. As the definition implies, he is a supporter of constructivism and here are some of his works that i googled.
Doing further research, i stumbled upon some comments on conceptual photography on this site which i found interesting and noteworthy.
Subjectivity Versus Objectivity
The article states that
"Whether a photo is intended to be “subjectively” or “objectively” interpreted varies considerably by the conceptual photographer.
Some conceptual photographers like to claim that their photo has one and only one objective meaning, and through their photograph, they strive to make it mean precisely the same thing to all people, regardless of background. While one can play at Jungian archetypes all day, and come up with some pretty powerful photographs while you're at it, will a photo really mean exactly the same thing to very different people? This is the goal of some conceptual photographers.
Other conceptual photographers take the other extreme: they attempt to make their photos ultimately subjective to interpret, entirely up to the viewer to decide what it means to themselves. To many, this makes more sense, as one can never possibly hope that their image will be interpreted the same by such vastly different people with such vastly different experiences—so why try?"
I felt that this snippet sums up alot about conceptual photography and pushes me to think about whether i would want to be subjective or objective about taking photographs. Do i want to allow my viewers to have the freedom to interpret my photos or do i want them to only see one message or feel one kind of emotion?
Read more: http://www.brighthub.com/multimedia/photography/articles/39542.aspx#ixzz0VTbgcM7X
Overall, i find doing a little research on photography (like its history or famous photographers) is useful and it pays to have the head knowledge about what i'm doing, especially since photography is a new subject to me.
Instead of aimlessly shooting photographs, i've learnt to appreciate the composition of a picture and to imagine what i would want the viewers to take back from my photographs.
0 comments:
Post a Comment