Month: October 2017

The text begins with a comparison of the bodies of two celebrity females – to point out the differences in body shape are digitally enhanced for the current use of the celebrity’s exposure. I like the statement given under plastic and digital surgery; that our actions are focused on the image rather than the real thing. As something i’d heard quite regularly about multiple professions and lifestyle is the intention to look successful rather than be successful is what is sub-consciously focused on.
The book refers that although digital enhancement is an expected, it is not always innocent -especially in commercial use with reference to Twiggy’s Olay anti-wrinkle cream advertisement, she expressed her looks were a result of the product rather than truthfully, it was photoshop – which unethically gives a false influence to the audience, an excellent example of how photoshop can create a falsehood, primarily dependent on the delivery and use of the image.
Spoken about next is photojournalism; Fontcuberta verifies the complication of the distinction between intent and moral issues with an example of photographer Brian Walski. Walski combined two very different photographs that overall gave a false impression of something that is documented in order to enhance the tragedy seen within the photos. Fontcuberta argues that the essence of the the original and doctored photo are the sae because it is what ‘really happened’.

In my mind I am left with no conclusion excect that the morals of digital retouching and enhancement will always be argued because of the consequences of the social impact that it leaves behind.

This reading looks into how more ‘conservative’ opinions of how art and photography is defined and constructed in the modern day, questions these statements made by Rosalind Krauss and other practitioners. A lot of Krauss’ beliefs as is written in this book, is that modernisation of presentation and installations are ruining the constructional back bone of photography rather than broadening the playing field.
Overall, I found the third chapter of the book; ‘The Ambiguous multiple-Entendre’  difficult to interpret due to their use of language concerning ‘hybrid art’ and what they define that as – since all art to me, no matter what platform it is made on or however it crosses over, can be recognised as art none the less without being questioned.

I found in this book, Robert Adams talks a lot about form when describing his own definition of beauty. 
He insists that art creates a limitless amount of opportunity for beauty to rediscovered, such as is found in Edward Weston’s bell peppers. 
He talks about how deceptive photographs can be, how easily photographed the subject looked as though the photographer only had to be present to get a good image. Whereas in reality, there is an embarrassing amount of strain, hard work and thinking behind the subjects and processes that we use. 
‘Why do photographers bother with the deception? … The answer is I, I think, that the deception is necessary if the goal of art is to be reached; only pictures that look as if they had been easily made can convincingly suggest that beauty is commonplace’. I like the ideas about what beauty is and where it lies in a photo (and art in general) and he contemplates wether all photographs are beautiful and what makes them so.
The only part of the book that i dislike is he speaks his opinion as if it is honest and fact when my own perception of beauty differs to his, i’ve considered he may be right and I, wrong but I believe his words are only opinion.

Welcome to University of Lincoln Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!