Week 5

            I had been looking forward to the week in this class when we got to hear about Photography and I really really loved Craig Hickman. Although he was a little scattered and all over the place it was very refreshing and it was nice to not take art so seriously for once. He showed the class a wide variety of Photographers and work and a lot of it was really beautiful and amazing. One Photographer he showed that I really loved was Tony Mendoza. What I liked about Mendoza’s work was the emotions he created. He used studio lighting in an outside and natural setting which created kind of an eerie feeling. He did this with flowers, dogs, and cats among other things. The colors that resulted from this were very vibrant and beautiful. Another photographer I really enjoyed was Caleb Charland. He has a much different style than Mendoza but still very interesting. He creates these books of random titles and we looked at one called “Bored Couples”. It was exactly what it sounds like, pictures of couples who are bored. It was actually quite funny when put together in a book all together. That was something that I found very interesting. If there was one picture of a bored couple it would probably be a pretty boring picture, but when looking at a book compiled of numerous bored couples it was really interesting and funny and brought a whole new meaning. I found something that Hickman said about the field of photography to be very interesting and inquisitive. He brought up the “dilemma” of being a photographer in that when you take a picture you are taking a picture of something someone else has done. In my opinion photography is partly about the art of capturing something, whether or not it is someone else’s, in a beautiful and unique way.

             In this week’s multimedia I was really touched by Alfredo Jaar’s works. I think he illustrates just how powerful photography can be. I think that photography is very unique in the art world because it brings the viewer so close and involved with the subject matter in such a way that a painting or drawing cannot. Jaar’s works are very emotional. “The Rwanda Project” was especially moving. Jaar spent six years on this project and after it all he said that all the pieces failed because there is no possible way that the viewer could understand what is happening in Rwanda through a picture. I love how he went about this project though. He says that when you tell someone “a million people died” its tragic, yes, but meaningless. Understanding this he goes on to say that you need to narrow it down to one person, one story that the viewer can become involved with. This idea made complete sense to me. It reminded me of something completely off topic but follows the same idea. I heard that if you are kidnapped you should tell your kidnapper details about your life and who you are so that they become involved in your life and it becomes harder for them to do you harm. By narrowing it down to one person and their life it becomes almost impossible for someone not to relate to them. The article this week I found a little bit boring. I understand that now in this day and age with photoshop and advanced computer rendering programs faking photos is an issue but the article just seemed to go on and on. I think that with everything in the media one must take information with a grain of salt and an inquisitive mind and that extends to photographs too. It is kind of a bizarre concept though because in the past faking a photograph wasn’t really that prevalent and is more of a recent thing. Overall, I found the artist of this week much more fascinating than the reading.

            An overarching theme I found this week was a sense of playfulness, even if the subject matter was serious. Starting from the way Craig presented his lecture materials to the content of what we looked at this week there was a sense of playfulness underneath it all. Craigs work was pretty cool and playful itself. He takes pictures and adds text or visuals that weren’t really in the picture when he took it. His text was satirical and funny at times. In Mendoza’s pictures of his dog there is definitely a sense of playfulness not only in the dogs expressions, but in the color and lighting and closeness of the photographs. Charland’s books have a definite lightheartedness and light tone to them. Another connection I made has to do with the very topic of the article we read about faking photographs. This is exactly what Craig does in his “fictional photographs”. He takes real life pictures then photoshops text in while making them look like the text could actually be there. If one did not know that he added the text himself, they would think it was actually there. Is it a bad think to deceive the viewer? I think in some situations, like the one in the article, yes but in others it can be harmless and playful.

            The piece I chose for this week is a piece that I have always liked and it reminded me of the work Craig showed us by Mendoza. 

(unknown)