I don't think I gave you all enough time to process Jackie's presentation today. Thoughts? And even critiques (she wants those for future work)?
P.S. I am not trying to bury the Samina post by the way, just thought about a lot today!!
Best.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
One of my critiques is that she didn't give enough context at the beginning.
Oh, Prof. "lorraine"! How you've saved me from the awkwardness of having to send off and be gracious to my non-relatives that I'll see again in the morning!
As far as Jackie's pres., I think that sometimes it may have been too oversimplified? Also, just because it's one of my interests and my background, I think it would have been nice to have a foundation for the means of production of the individual images and THEN WHAT THAT MEANS, BECAUSE (to me, at least) ITS SO IMPORTANT. Advertisements are different from TV shows which are different from daguerrotypes, which are different from etchings, which are different from Ads for teevee which are different from catalogs which are different from Art which is different from DIY editorials.The list goes on!
In addition to understanding what the images are saying, I think it would have been very interesting to understand the forces and circumstances that are motivating, enabling, and creating those images to speak.
So basically: in addition to the who and what, I want to know more about the how and why (of the forces behind the camera).
PS also really enjoyed your exchange with bowden!
Yes, I agree about context, and that perhaps the element of production involved in images might be more important than the images themselves. I've also been thinking about the image/text binary and how it might be worth exploring further, as well as how the advent and infiltration of sight, sound, and motion media have recontextualized and reformulated our ideas about print media.
Post a Comment