A Democracy of the Image: Photographic Portraiture and Commodity Production by John Tagg
Ideology and Criticism from The Limits of Representation by Michel Foucault
NOTE: You are to identify and bring to class three to five images that represent/support/contradict/illustrate the selected theories presented by Tagg and Foucault.
Next class please have your identified peer review DRAFT. This is a ruff outline of the work you will be providing a critical review on due class 05. If you have any questions please contact me.
For more information on John Tagg and Michel Foucault please visit:
John Tagg
http://www2.binghamton.edu/art-history/faculty/jtagg/index.html
Michel Foucault
http://www.michel-foucault.com/index.html
Alissa D. Brossmer
ReplyDeleteMay 28, 2011
Reading for week 3
Theory & Criticism
The Burden of Representation
“But what do such picture do for us? What uses do they have? Why does it seem natural to have kept them? And how had it come about that, for most people, photography is primarily a means of obtaining pictures of faces they know?”…. We as humans enjoy being happy and there are a few things that can trigger a happy though that have passed. Smells, sounds and images are a few things that can trigger these happy memories.
“The aura of the precious immature passes over into the early daguerreotype.”…. It seems that small images have been always popular. Even now we go to photo booths, pictures in our wallets, instant camera… we love to have these small tangible images.
“”Man is created in the image of God and God’s image cannot be captured by any human machine.”” … That statement is so ridiculous. Ha-ha
“To ‘have one’s portrait done’ was one of the symbolic acts by which individuals from the rising social classes made their ascent visible to themselves and others and classed themselves among who enjoyed social status.” … Because of mechanical reproduction we can see all classes. When painting or the beginning of photography, only the wealthy can have there image replicated, which is only giving history a one sided visual to what once was. Thank goodness that has changed, to be shown all classes is more telling of what really was from many class points.
<3 A.D.B.
Alissa D. Brossmer
ReplyDeleteTheory & Criticism
May 30, 2011
Response for week 3
Ideology and Criticism for The Limits of Representation by Michel Foucault
I have read this reading two times, or lets say attempted to read it two times. I grew so frustrated from the lack of comprehension on my part. I asked my roommate/ boyfriend Andy to see if he could understand it, he could not. At the perfect time my next-door neighbor/friend/ landlord knocked on our door. Considering he is a layer I thought, “hey maybe he can grasp this”, I was wrong. Three out of three of us could not understand or keep up with Mr. Foucault.
I at first became frustrated because I would be unable to complete a portion of the homework that was assigned. Then I became more frustrated because I’m completely missing out on what is sure to be great topics, points, and theories. The idea that I was missing out on all of this because of his writing and explanation style, made me annoyed at him. Assuming he is an extremely intelligent man, wouldn’t he assume that not everyone can understand things if he writes in this manor? Or I would at least think he could give a more simplistic summary of his ideas so that the majority can grasp it. Maybe he doesn’t want us, the viewer to “get it”. Maybe he only wants people who can understand him to get his points. Well I’m not a part of that group.
Come class tomorrow I will be asking a lot of question regarding this reading. I want to know what he is saying to Thomas that he is not saying to me. ☹
<3 A.D.B.
Casey Taillacq
ReplyDeleteJune 1, 2011
Responses for Week 3 Reading
The Burden of Representation Essays on Photographies and Histories by John Tagg
You really never do stop to think about just how many images you are exposed to on a daily basis, but when you do start to think about it the number of "useless images" you see in a day is really kind of ridiculous. These images really are everywhere you look, wether you go outside or stay in and go on the internet. What also is interesting is the fact that the images that are most important to people usually is pictures of their families and friends, which is a pretty good thing for me considering I am planning on going into Wedding and Special Event Photography, so it is pretty cool that those are the pictures a lot of people will cherish. It kind of is funny that if you look through people's pictures you could piece together a lot of important events that occurred in their lifetimes. This kind of brought me back to the idea we had talked about before on how pictures of people you know are precious to you, and thinking about why some people refuse to throw away pictures of loved ones, and insist on keeping them even after they have passed. These pictures are simply a symbol or a representation of the person in them, but they are not the person themselves, although the image may hold precious memories wether it be in the moment or memories with the people in the images, it still tends to be really valuable to people.
Now as for the second reading...
I really have tried and put a lot of effort into reading, focusing my attention and really defining and comprehending what the heck this guy Michel Foucault is talking about, but I seriously think the more I look at it and the more I re-read, define, highlight, etc, the less I am understanding.
I will say though, it was useful to actually go to the links on the blog to read about the authors before reading the pieces so I could understand a little what these guys backgrounds were.
The Order of Things Response
ReplyDeleteThe Limits of Representation was very wordy that I got lost in the theory. But this I was I think I did get and hoping I get clarification.
Language is a representation of objects because it can describe them but as grammer changes that is where it develops a limit.
You need the power to represent, given to you “by way of logic, arithmetic, the sciences of nature and grammer”
*correction* But I was not positive on the reading, but I think I might have got it, and I am hoping
ReplyDeleteAgreed with casey... and serious brain farts on the second reading
ReplyDeleteMike Tucker
ReplyDeleteThe Order of Things
Some things can really send my brain through a loop from these weekly readings, but nothing has confused me greater than “The Limits of Representation.” To write it sounds crazy but the thought of understanding “at all precisely what thinking is, what you experience when you think” will haunt me forever. Overall the reading was a little over my head for most parts, with a decent portion of my time was spent thinking of what happens when I think.
Michael Karigianis
ReplyDeleteResponse to Tagg
When I read John Tagg’s The Burden of Representation I thought of a lot of things. One such thing was the relationship for demand and mechanization. As demand got stronger for images in the early to mid 19th century the processes by which they were created appeared to become less and less complicated over time. As he points out the daguerreotype gave way to the collotype or talbotype which gave way to the wet plate colodian process. That process was later refined with glass plate negatives and albumen printing. As the processes by which images are made were refined, the demand for images increased. The relationship between supply and demand dictated that the price for photographs would fall.
Everyone could now afford to get a portrait done. But what the author subtly suggests was not only was there a relationship of who were getting portraits taken to the means by which they were taken, there was also a relationship of who were getting portraits taken to the quality of the image produced.
Presumably the author was trying to lead us to the concept that the more affluent the customer, the higher in quality the image would turn out. If you look at a daguerreotype versus, well anything else, you can see the difference in image quality (although the expense and time it took to produce such an image was not the daguerreotype’s only drawback). So as demand would increase, so too would image quality. Faster processes, cheaper prices, the ability to reproduce images and making images and eventually the entire process of making an image more readily available to the public would all play a part in advancing photography in general.
There are two things about Tagg’s article I would like to point out/add too. Much like the daguerreotype, the tintype was a positive process. A small piece of metal was treated with photosensitive chemicals and varnish as light passed through a lens and the shutter closed in less than a second producing a unique snapshot. Tintypes came about in the 1850’s but became really popular in the Civil War because they were cheap enough to attain, quick enough to produce (you could get your tintype minutes after it was taken) and small enough to carry with you. They kind of became a precursor to the wallet photo. They were popular with soldiers for this reason. Tintypes were sometimes found among dead soldiers. The process’ popularity waned after the war probably because of the advent of the Kodak camera and also the poor survivability of a tintype (if it was not cared for, which they invariably weren’t given the nature of the way most people carried them around). However it was still available after the war and well into the twentieth century.
The other thing I’d like to add is that we see history repeating itself right now, or rather continuing. The digital process has replaced film (if not among fine artists or “purists,” at least among mass consumers of images). The long, slow and expensive process of loading film, shooting a roll of film, developing negatives and producing a limited amount of images has all been replaced by the click of a button, or a delete button. You can see your image right away and if you don’t like it, you can “trash” it. And you can repeat this process infinitely. Unlike with film, as the demand for digital images increases, so does the quality of the image. Larger sensors and better ISO’s are becoming easier to make and more affordable. However, the image is still inherently inferior to that of its film-base predecessor, much like the quality of the daguerreotype to just about anything else in the 19th century.
The digital image isn’t the only thing in the next step in the process of photographic evolution. Its also the way in which images are consumed. Everything is done on-line now. There is almost no reason for someone to print out their photos. Everything is on their computer and now people are even sharing them/archiving them in cyberspace.
Alyssa Marshall
ReplyDelete“These are the photographs we keep in our wallets.” After reading that all I could think of is when people are so enthusiastic about showing you the wallet photos of their children. And they show them to you whether you want to see them or not. You could even say people show their wallet photos of children and family as if it were “fine art.”
“...[a] family album in which we make one kind of sense of our lives.” So does that mean that we NEED photography in order to remember? We could always just go on people’s memories but sometimes people have a “foggy memory.” So are all the photos we take that make it to the future as important as a “photo finish” picture? The picture that holds proof and memory or something.
“Rigid frontality signified the bluntness and ‘naturalness’ of a culturally unsophisticated class.” A quote like this automatically made me think of the classic facebook photo. There are always different poses that can say certain things about people. Whether they’re throwing up a peace sign, maybe the “gangster” peace sign, or just simply smiling in a posed way. The past repeated itself if back then they had a way of reading people through their pose. Also, “The portrait is therefore a sign whose purpose is both the description of an individual and the inscription of social identity.” This relates to “a picture tells 1,000 words.”
“To have one’s portrait done was one of the symbolic acts by which individuals from the rising social classes made their ascent visible to themselves and other and classes made their ascent visible to themselves and other and classes themselves among those who enjoyed social status.” I had always wondered why people got pictures painted of either themselves or their family. So does that mean that if you have a painting of you or your family in your house that you have money? Or does it mean that you’re self centered.
Michael Karigianis
ReplyDeleteResponse to Foucault.
I could not understand this reading for the most part. I read it twice and still couldn't understand it. I didn't read it three times because after the second time I came to the conclusion that would not help my understanding at all.
The very little I did understand was the part about all thinking is feeling.
You can not think something or about something without feeling. When I think something I feel something about it whether its an agreement or an emotion.