Reading Response for: In Defense of the Poor Image
As we now have the technology to edit and share images
across the internet and phones, low quality images have become widely accepted. It is not the actual image that we are
sending out or expect to be appreciated aesthetically, but rather what it stands
for. My friends and I will send funny
memes or gifs that have a joke or something that we know will make each other
laugh. We don’t care that the resolution
is below 72dpi, it is not about the image. In a similar way, I have noticed that snap
chat photos are lower quality than my typical phone camera images, as if they
are compressed and sized down to make them smaller and require less data to
send. Once again, the quality of the
image in this case doesn’t matter so much because the point of snap chat is not
to make beautiful photos that people will look at for a lifetime, but rather a
way to chat with friends who can only see the photos up to 10 seconds before
they are gone forever. Currently, I work at a place that makes custom calendars
for schools and many of the photos they send in for the covers are very low
res, and they don’t realize that the photos will print in low quality and look
pixelated. I think this is partially
because people are so used to looking at low res images that they don’t
recognize what a high quality photo actually is.
After watching the film, a Remix Manifesto, I now question
who owns what materials. If someone takes an image off the internet that they
don’t own, sends it to someone, the jpeg gets compressed, who then owns the
image now because it is different than the original? Is it ownerless, or does
the original artist get credit for it even though it is not the original
resolution she/he made it to be? Do they still want to be associated as
creating the art/photo that is so poor quality?
Reading Discussion for: Roland Barthes, Extracts from Camera Lucida
Roland Barthes spent much time talking about the deadpan
photo style and how he felt to be the model for it. Because the photo image
lasts forever, he says he is doomed to have the deadpan expression on his face,
to look like a criminal wanted by the police in a mug shot. Even though that is not how he looks in real
life all the time that is how people will see his representation and think of
him. I side with Barthes on this one; I
don’t like it when my friends take a picture of me without me knowing and send
it over snapchat to our other friends. It
usually happens when I am not ready for it and it is not a flattering photo. Even though it is not deadpan style, and I feel like those photos are how others
will think of me.
I was intrigued that Roland Barthes could not think of a
word in French (his native vernacular) to represent the elements of a photo
that make it interesting, so he settled with the Latin word stadium, which is defined as the element
that initially gets your attention. The
reason it fascinates me is because Latin has been known as a pretty universal
language especially for academic classifications. I feel like photos themselves
are universal because anyone from anywhere in the world can look at a photo and
interpret it in some way; some part of it could capture their attention. I think that whether he realized it or not, by
using a Latin word to represent an aspect of photography he has linked its
universality in interpretation.Reading Discussion for: Vilem Flusser, Toward a Philosophy of Photography
In his writing, Vilem Flusser talks about the invention of
photography as an important historical event.
He outlines a few major historical milestones: the invention of writing,
the invention of photography and the invention of digital media. He argues that each impacted culture with
powerful force causing an irreversible shift in society.
When writing was invented, communication increased drastically
for the people of that time. Culture
became more civilized and refined.
Writing was a linear invention, a way for people to express their
specific ideas to others; it caused people to think more conceptually. However, because it is linear we must read it
a certain way from start to finish or else it doesn’t make sense (in English we
read left to right). This constrains the
creativity of writing, something not found in photography.
Vilem says the next cultural shock occurred with the
invention of photography. It was now
possible to capture an image of the visible world and look at it instead of
just having to use your memory or imagination to recall things. Photos are connotative, meaning that they
imply or suggest an idea or feeling rather than give a direct meaning. People
have a chance to interpret photos how they want rather than being told a direct
statement when reading.
Things become complicated when text is used to describe
images while also images are used to illustrate text. Each becomes equally dominant but sometimes
confusion arises when they are contradictory. While adding to the direct and literal meaning
which is meant to be helpful in some cases, imagination and freedom of
interpretation by the viewer can be lost.
This is a reason why choosing a title for a photo is so important
because it can strongly influence the audience’s opinion. In order to let the viewer make absolute
decisions about their interpretation of the photo, some photographers choose to
name them “untitled”.
In our culture today, the digital media age, most people
don’t even give photos a second thought. Nobody thinks about the invention of
photography every time they take a selfie; photos are so much a part of our
culture and we just take them for granted.
In addition to taking them for granted, people also take them as the
literal truth and believe everything about them even though they know it is
just an image taken by an apparatus machine.
This belief in photos is changing our society in more ways than people
realize or are willing to admit. For
example, people can lose their self-esteem when they see oversexualized images
everywhere of the “perfect body” when really it is fake and impractical.
Thus, photography has changed society and how humans
interact with each other and with technology.
The apparatus and the photographer become one; neither can create a
photograph without the other. The
photographer shoots objects that have a specific meaning and controls how other
people see the world when they look at their photos, but the camera is the one
that retains the exact replica image. Each image helps change the world a small
portion at a time whether positively or negatively.
