Wed 30/03/211 The Photographic Fundamentalist.

I recently read an online article titled "Unreasonable Apple" (presentation at the first MOMA photography forum, Feb 2010- from the Paul Graham archive). In it, the question is raised as to whether or not photography is EASY or DIFFICULT ( good ?) The author states: 'Its so easy its ridiculous. Its just looking at things, we all do that. Its simply a way of recording what you see.' Ha Ha Ha, I chuckle to myself, how true. He then goes on to add: ' Its so difficult because it is everywhere, all the time . Its the view of the pen as I writ this. Its right there across the room. Then its gone, you didn't photograph it and now its to late, the moment has evaporated'. Thinking on the easy/difficult question, I am of the opinion that photography is in fact quite easy. However, it is extremely difficult to be really good (Uelsmann good) at it, perhaps even impossible to perfect. This is because it is always evolving and developing, just as the world we see changes and evolves. In this sense it must be an organic art form.
 Another interesting point raised in the article is the question of what to photograph: 'Do  I walk down the street and make pictures of strangers, do I make a drama-tableaux with my friends, do I only photograph my beloved, family, myself, or should I just go straight to a war zone??   I find myself considering what is it that  I point my camera at and why. 1.Trees. Simple, the first photographer I took an interest in was Atget. 2. I have an irresistible impulse to photograph walls, windows and door ways. I would say this was an Atget influence also, only its been going on even before I knew who he was. I find it interesting to think about the things that you naturally find yourself pointing your camera at and why is it your spirit takes to that particular object, person, face or form and not another.
 Today I discovered a photographer that shares my spirit for the doorway, window and wall. He was a major player in the 'New Topographics: Photographs of a Man-altered Landscape' (1975 Rochester NY) exhibition. The aim of this young group of photographers was to move the public (and critics) raptured gaze away from the old skool sentimental view of the American Landscape e.g Ansel Adams & Co. aka ARAT  another rock another stone. I will talk more about where that gaze was moved to another day. For now, just enjoy some works by 'Lewis Baltz' (b,1945)  




Reading:     http://www.egs.edu/faculty/lewis-baltz/biography/
                   http://www.paulgrahamarchive.com/writings_by.html
                   Photography a critical introduction. (Liz Wells 4th Ed.2009)
Images:        My camera.
                    http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=baltz+images&hl=en&prmd=ivns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=S4OTTZWQLs3xsgaWtazQBg&sqi=2&ved=0CCAQsAQ&biw=1259&bih=594

Facebook and Twitter- signs of change. Wed 16th March 211

Eminem has the Highest amount of 'Likes' on Facebook. However, Lady Ga Ga has far more followers on Twitter.(Capital Radio 6:00 o'clock news 16th March 211). As little as 15 years ago these two statements would have had no meaning for me or anyone else I know of. In fact I would have said that the radio commentator was speaking gobbledygook. Today though they are clear signifiers even for those that don't have or use a computer. Chambers Handy Dictionary (Published 1993) defines the word 'Twitter' as: 1.A chirp, of e.g. a bird 2. slight nervous excitement 3. to chirp, make small noises. Here is an example of how signs can change over time but more importantly by the cultural understandings which inform our interpretation.
 Signs can take the form of words, images, sounds, acts, odours or even flavours. But a sign is not a sign until we invest it with meaning. Over a relatively short period of time, we as a society have transformed the conception of the sign 'Twitter' into something totally different from its 1993 dictionary definition. We are Homo significans-meaning makers, Through our creation and interpretation of signs. Peirce says 'We think only in signs' (Pierce 1931-58, 2.302). I would definitely agree with this statement. When I hear that Lady Ga Ga has more twitter followers than anyone else, I immediately get a picture in my head. To be more accurate I get a series of pictures/images flashing into my mind. For this reason I believe that it is easier to change what a 'word' signifies than it is to change what an image signifies. I cant think of any image signs that have changed at all.
To conclude I would just like to put down some signs that really make me think.  'Whilst we experience time as a continuum, we may represent it in either analogue or digital form. A watch with an analogue display (hour, minute and second hands) has the advantage of dividing up an hour like a cake (so that in a lecture, for instance, we can 'see' how much time is left). A watch with a digital display (displaying the current time as a changing number) has the advantage of precision, so that we can see exactly what time it is 'now'. (Chandler 2009 20:54:06)

READING And Reasearch:  http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem02.html
                                             Photography, A Critical Introduction fouth ed.  Liz Wells 

Thursday/Saturday evening. 5/3/211 A rethink on: Instant Gratification

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1R1FMrXa9h0

When I initially watched this Lady Ga Ga promo. My first thought was; What on earth is a celebrity of such iconic status doing trying to resurrect a dog like Polaroid. The sunglasses that take pics, great and innovative idea, But the mobile printer made no sense to me at all. Why would you want to carry that relatively large printer around when you can store all your pics on your phone and look at them, manipulate them and do what ever the hell you want to them?
But then,,,,,,I reread 'On Photography' by Susan Sontag, in which she states (Movies and television programs light up walls, flicker, and go out; but with still photographs the image is an object, light weight, cheap to produce, easy to carry about, accumulate and store) I would add to this that they are also easier to sell to Joe Pub. I was forced to rethink........A still photo does not depend on battery power, having the right equipment, programs, and USB ports. It simply fits into you pocket and you can take it out and look at it without having to press buttons or plug bugger all in. An analogical mode is always 'more real' than a digital one. Natural Vs Artificial, the deepest part of me is analogical, I feel. 

Celebrity.......As celebrities go I quite like Lady Ga Ga aka Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta aka Stefi, The Germ. Speaking as the father of a teenage girl I think she could do with covering up abit, But, she is innovative, ambitious and determined, All admirable traits in anyone. Could you imagine her management team telling her to cut her hair or for that matter that it was a good idea to join the army. War on or not.
If you want to find out about Ga Ga's influences the one person to look at would be the 70's obsessed performance artist and DJ Lady starlight. She is the one behind this 'Polaroid' business me thinks. 

                                                                    Starlight.                  Ga Ga.