Reponse to Camera Lucida

Roland Barthes talks about what photography means; photography is a scientific accomplishment. I never really knew how the first camera was actually invented until he stated the fact about how silver halogens were sensitive to light. I thought that fact might not have been necessary, since it was in parenthesis, but it was really a crucial point to express how photography actually was invented, scientifically. This text is very rich and filled with metaphors and phrases that seem almost too much, yet he still captures what photography means to him. 

Response to Masters of Illusion

This was a complex video. It was interesting to in depth think about the scientific aspects that were presented. I liked how it talked about perspectives because right now in my design drawing class, we are dealing with drawing perspective drawings and its interesting to relate the two, and how perspectives change easily. Leonardo’s illusionistic aspects were showcased in the video and they were interesting to see and learn about. 

Response to Ways of Seeing

I had actually read one of Berger’s essays of the same title, dealing with art and the problem with reproduction of art. I enjoyed it and was glad to have my knowledge revamped once again on the subject. The television series was definitely more interesting than the text version, and I can say I retained more information from it. Back when there was no reproduction of art, many paintings had way more significant value since there was only one original version. This led to art only being owned by the wealthiest people. Reproduction allowed the middle class to finally own art, but some say this reproduction ruined the value of artistic pieces. I can agree with that, but owning the original of a piece is even more valuable now that there are ‘fakes’, because its almost like a competition for the most authentic version. Another point he mentions is that when there was no reproduction, certain pieces of art could only be viewed in certain places. So, he establishes that now many pieces are all over the world, does their meaning change because at first they were intended to be viewed at a certain location? I think this makes sense because say I created a work of art for a specific museum or location, and then all of a sudden it gets recreated, and stored in random places across the country. After that happens I would feel that people would not understand the real motives for the creation of this work of art because they are not viewing it in the right circumstances that I intended. 

Response to Errol Morris on Photography

I really appreciated the line, “to collect photographs is to collect the world,” because I used to travel the country doing sports photography and each location I was in brought new, different meanings to the photographs I had taken there. I fully agree with her point on how paintings lose much more of their essential quality, compared to a photograph, when printed in a book. I believe this is the case because when a painting is reprinted into a book, the texture of the actual painting is forcibly changed to whatever kind of paper the book is printed on. But with a photograph, when it is printed in a book it is merely the same thing as if it was not printed in a book, because the texture of the physical photograph has no intentions for its meaning. 

Response to The Photographer's Eye

Szarkowski’s book was an interesting look at the medium of art called photography. He evaluates how photography became what it is today, but in a concise manner. I like how the book is categorized into sections dealing with what a photographer encounters with his or her camera and the world. I agree with the statement about how narrative painting has declined in the past century, and thought it was interesting that he contributed that to photography. However, it makes sense because photography has relieved the painter of the necessity of story telling. Photography has accomplished this feat because of how it captures reality with every shutter click.