Wednesday, November 30, 2016

Day A: In 150 words, post a reply to "When Photographers Are Neuroscientists" (Keats). Within your reply, summarize the article and propose a question or critique regarding the article. AND, while you achieve this feat, consider our discussions in our H1 unit:
  • flattening of dimension through language
  • signifier, signified, and real
  • symbolic, imaginary, and real
  • world for us, world without us, world unto itself
  • as a borromean knot
  • as a gordian knot
Day B: In 150 words, respond to a post from Day A, rephrasing their main point and contributing a new layer upon their understanding of H1 (and the bullets above).

18 comments:

  1. This article talks about the effects of manipulating photographs or the "reality" to yield a product which is more real to us. Works of 2 people, Carleton Watkins and Elina Dorfman are discussed. Carleton, a photographer back in the day, who poured "noxious chemicals" over his negatives to "resemble what he saw", and Elena, a modern photographer, that layers several images to obtain unnatural-like effects and show the "physical impossibilities". While both creatives manipulate their original photos and make them "less true to life, more true to us", one attempts to make it look more real and the other makes them appear abnormal. Although Elina makes them look less real to life, her images make us feel like we're in the scene. The images maybe 2D yet they appear 3D with the layers and let the viewer feel the experience that the creator felt. Photographs are usually considered more true and reliable than art, however, looking at someone like Elena Dorfman who layers the images, are photos always more reliable than art?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This article discussed the way people can manipulate photos to create new images that alter the original copy completely. It compares the creations of two artists, Carleton Watkins and Elena Dorfman. Carleton was a photographer that took pictures and immediately poured chemicals over the negatives to personalize the scenes he captured. Elena makes her work personalized by layering multiple pictures one on top of the other to make a creation that could not be made by simply taking individual photos. Both artists change the “true to life” images to make them reside more to them in a unique way. This allows for other people to see and experience the truth of the artists rather than simply looking at a photograph that anyone could have taken. To answer your question I think that photos do hold a truth through a lens that does not specifically reside to someone but does not hold the truth of a person as everyone has a different way of interpreting something. However, people can take a picture of something at an angle they see it, which does personalize the picture to a certain extent.

      Delete
  2. This article talks about photographers who manipulate the natural landscape. The intent of this is to create ambiguity and images we don’t naturally see. Dorfman one of the modern photographers mentioned in this article uses her ability to capture images and layering them to create more stimulating images and a sort of optical illusion. The article also talks about how “human perception is far messier” and images such as a painting made by an artist “can only blend information that has been preprocessed by the brain”. Comparing this to photographic art we see a sharper contrast between the different layers of images yet photographers and artists purposely distort and deform their images so that they reflect how we see and that it becomes more true to us similar to making a real image symbolic so it is open to more interpretation than the real image. A question about this article is as we break the constraints of what the eye can see through photography does that change and obsolete how we view the art of modern paintings?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This article discusses the effects of manipulating photographs. The intention behind this manipulation is to create ambiguity and to create the type of images we don’t normally see. The article also talks about Elena Dorfman, a modern photographer who layers multiple images, creating unusual illusions. For photographers, the goal is to transmit a natural perception of a scene to someone who is not there. For neuroscientists, perception relies on the ability of humans to fill in the gaps based on experience and their imaginations. The improvisation created by the brain makes up for “blind spots,” creating a unique understanding of the surrounding world. Elena Dorfman, blends these two ideas of perception into one art form. By purposefully exposing her photos to transmit physical impossibilities or contradicting points of view, Dorfman bends the rules on what the eyes see and the brain processes. However, doesn’t changing the way we view pictures diminish the real value of the scene?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elena Dorfman, a modern photographer uses multiple images to create unusual illusions in her pictures. She uses information and research done by neuroscientists who study the human ability to fill in the gaps of perception based on experiences and their imaginations. With her own photographic abilities and the knowledge from neuroscientists she creates brand new images that demonstrate physical impossibilities or contradicting points of view. I would tend to disagree with the question posed in the Day A post as it implies that Elena is diminishing or ruining the value of the photograph by altering it. In fact the changes enhances the photograph as it can now display multiple meanings, messages, and it creates a three dimensional element. This all contributes to greater imagery in which you can find the multiple layers and within those layers you can find anything from the basic message to a more complicated message leading to a more incisive thought.

      Delete
  4. The article examines the ramifications of manipulating photographs in order to create an image that has a better sense of reality to it. Elena Dorfman is a photographer that layers multiple photos of the same image, this creates the effect of an "experience" rather than a single moment usually captured by a single photo. The camera captures a moment of "fidelity", something that the human brain cannot possibly grasp. Painters try to avoid this by painting their images in ways that in reality could not conceivable, such as the perspective revealing more than an individual could see in one moment. By purposely manipulating a moment the observer of the image is placed in the shoes of the artist. However, by adjusting the image so that the message of the artist is clear, are we restricting the freedom of a spectator to create their own meaning and understanding of the image?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jonathon Keats’ article attempts to debunk the stipulation that photography is the most relatable of the artistic disciplines—it being the most grounded in reality (“[t]he camera sees the world with total fidelity to physical laws”). This would make sense; however, the way that visual perception is interpreted by us has a certain ambiguity to it (our eyes aren’t perfect), a trait which happens to have a significant importance in the art world. As quoted in the article, ambiguity in art can be described as a “certainty of many, equally plausible interpretations,” and apparently this is something we tend to find very pleasing aesthetically. A photograph captures a single moment and doesn’t leave much unsaid. However, other genres of visual art—specifically those more defined and molded by our own hands (paintings, sculptures, etc.)—tend to embody our visual limitations and as a result can often provoke a more personal interpretation.

      Delete
  5. Elena Dorfman layers images creating effects “unlike anything seen in nature”. She “intentionally introduce[s] physical impossibilities”, telling us “truth about how we experience the natural world”. Distortions and uncertainties make the photographs less true to the world but more true to us, allowing them to resonate within us. “The camera sees the world with total fidelity to physical laws.... Human perception is... messier”. Dorfman’s photographs make us feel like we are experiencing the photographed place. By “enlisting photomanipulation...achieve[s]... most oft-praised qualit[y] in art[:]ambiguity”. A photograph is concrete, involving one-point perspective, easy to admire but hard to relate to. Ambiguity makes photographs accessible to everyone. How we see the world feels real to us, so when art reflects how we see, we feel comfort and connection, and it begins to hold meaning. What is viewed as more valuable, reality, or our interpretation and connections with it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every one views images sightly different as they are a product of our memory and imagination. The article discusses how the brain precieve photographs by modifying it to make it appear realistic and relatable. Photographers Watkins and Dorfman try to make their photos more appealing to us by bring out certain characteristics that ignite emotions. As one image can strike a certain memory it also strikes an array of different mental images thus making human perception messier. Photos are a selection of many different elements of nature and being when captured just right they portray story. Each person might analyze the story differently thus giving photos symbolic meaning. To some extent photos present an underlying cause; in this case they show the quality of truth. If we enhance photos aren't we taking away their significant? How can you tell what is real and what is imaginary? Does this take away certain aspects of true beauty in the world?

      Delete
  6. “When Photographers are Neuroscientists” talks about how art can be manipulated or changed. In the article, 2 artists Watkins and Dorfman are used as examples of how photos can be manipulated to show a different side to an image. Watkins manipulated his photos to show landscapes he witnessed and Dorfman who layered multiple images to create an illusion of nature. This article shows the ambiguity that comes to art. Although a camera can capture a certain moment in life, art is something that can show emotion, character and versatility of life. And I think that is what Watkins and Dorfman are trying to show. The art that they see and feel. But then again, to truly see art, we have to see it for ourselves. So when we see manipulated images, is it taking away our own perspective of art and manipulating it like the image or showing something new?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The article provided features photographers Carleton Watkins and Elena Dorfman who manipulate photographs to create a new image. Watkins on one hand, had poured “noxious chemicals” on his images and had exposed them while they were wet , causing the blue in his images to be overexposed. On the other hand Dorfman had layered multiple “32-megapixel” images to create “effects unlike anything seen in nature”. In the case of Dorfman's photographs,she created images that truly capture the location photographed and yet at the same time, take us to another dimension that looks very much like ours, is ours, but non existent.These images show different perspectives of our world without us and with us in the same image, and what our impact can look like.But would a viewer sees it as a beautiful image of our worlds combining or a lovely representation of our awful impact on the world?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The article “When Photographers are Neuroscientist” talks about the manipulation of art and photographs by two photographers, to create a new visual. Carleton Watkins was a photographer who poured “noxious chemicals” and exposed it as it was wet. His photos were manipulated to “resemble the landscapes” he had seen. Elena Dorfman on the other side, captured “32-megapixels” photos in full colour and layered many images to obtain the effects “unlike anything seen in nature”. Dorfman purposely added “physical impossibilities”, from conflicting perspective, allowing to know the “truth about how we experience the natural world”. In a 2-d image, Dorfman shows the visual information, that one would have perceived by analyzing a 3-d landscape. Her pictures allow one to experience their presence in that place. The images are manipulated to allows us to feel and experience the place. But by doing so, doesn’t it twist our perception and perspective of art.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is it art that, when altered, warps one's perception, or is it the perception of the individual that morphs the art? By digitally creating a scene in which the "[layering of] many images[...]obtain[...]effects 'unlike anything seen in nature'", one is initiating a never before experienced relationship between the artist, the viewer, and the art itself. The intention, the perceived, and the actual. Through the overlaying of various 2-D images, a 3-D landscape is born. Elena Dorfman places the viewer in this manipulated world; the viewer, being injected into a setting that has solely pieces of familiarity to cling to, finds known parts to establish and solidify their surroundings, creating a unique experience for each individual as everyone will grab hold of an array of different strongholds within the image. While the perception of the image is warped and twisted through the eyes of every single viewer, the art itself does not change, nor does Dorfman's intention for the piece. So, I ask you: what is actually changing, the signifier or the signified, or is it something else entirely?

      Delete
  9. The article talks about how photographic abilities alter and manipulate the "reality" to something brand new "modified". The two photographer Carleton Watkins and Elsona Dorfman manipulate picture of nature to create all these new effects that is far from real within nature. Both the photographer show different side of pictures. Elsona Dorfman modifies pictures by layering multiple pictures to bring a illusion like effects to nature that are not even there. Overall layer can change the perspective and dimension of how the picture is to me viewed. Our mind are sometimes avoid what is being exposed to it compared to the technical side such as the physic and the mathematical world. The simple pictures were given more life and feeling of presence. But art is not something that can be view that way , to really experience it you have to do it your self because modification change the perspective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Our perception of the world through our eyes is much different than that through the lens of a camera. Different illusions are produced through the manipulation of different images, specifically by layering pictures on top of each other. This overall image gives us a certain depth into what the artist was trying to convey. Art is so easily exploited, that it is important to experience it first hand in order to take in as much as possible without any alterations. With that being said, how do we know if art has been altered or if it is unrefined and raw?

      Delete
  10. The article talks about how true photographic representaions of the world are difficult almost impossible. The two photographer Carleton Watkins and Elsona Dorfman both change aspects of their pictures to create new effects but do not accuratly depict nature but art and the artist. Dorfman added 'physical impossibilies' expolring how people perceive the natural world. Many things can change how a picture is viewed. Who is viewing it and what are their ideologies. who took/made the picture =. How has the picture been manipulated. All these ideas can change how one view a work of art such as a picture and how one might view the world around them.

    ReplyDelete

  11. This article discusses the difference and similarities between painters and artist. Artists are compared to neuroscientists throughout the article. Photography is something truer to fact so photographers must try various manipulations to attain “physical impossibilities”. Painters must have “an intuitive grasp of heuristics” to create that ambiguity. While it is not as true to life, it’s true to us and may reflect how we see the world. We will always take in art work differently by filling the blind potts with our own experiences and views. Would art forms be a better substitution for language? As in both it depends on the person to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The article discusses unconventional photographers who manipulate their photographs in unique ways. Human perception is messy, hacked together by a visual system riddled with inconsistencies. Ordinarily, a photograph is an independent fact but by manipulating them, the photographers created  ambiguity in an otherwise factual art, approaching the tenuous quality of truth.  Distortions and uncertainties make pictures less true to life but more true to us, reflecting how we see. By creating a relatable yet complex reality, the photographers held a mirror up to their audience and make them look within themselves.

    ReplyDelete