|
we are talking about donald brook's
the idea that photographs(unlike paintings) are, in some perspicuous sense of the metaphor, transparent seems to be gaining currency.
work faster
we are talking about transparent
i am "transparent?...in relation to what?"
the metaphor of transparent
we are going to the notes
we are not looking at the
is the paper 'on the alleged transparency of photographs?
you dont look at a photograph you look through it
I look at a way a photograph is taken
boltanski spent a long time using photography in a conceptual way he said photos of his childhood he used were not really him
photography is only a moment and we see it as going on forever
the photgraph is a conceptual thing not as a process of representation
we dont go beyond the image of painting
we can only identify things using a photo
we are getting back to bladerunner"
Perception
i think we need to think of photography in a number of ways
- and barthes talks about this in camera lucida...at one level...the first level
of signification, a photograph denotes...at another level, photography has social connotations and at another level, photography links into myths...therefore to deal only at the perceptual or denotative level is to simplify photography
the notion of photography is not evidence in a court of law
can video be used?
photography may not be evidence in a court of law, but its importance is much more tied up with the social imaginary
photography denies time...whether it be 'real' or 'fact' is not so important as the way it collapses past and present
gerhard richter"
painting can not make us believe in the image
where the fuck did he find gerhard richter in this article?
he brought this in and asked if he could read it. that is what happens in real time
no but it may enable us to perform the image....and in that the technology becomes opaque"
painting and photography was once close together but we cant believe
in that now"
being seen to be there by having your photo taken in front of that"
but if painting and photography are both systems of signification, perhaps they have at one level a very close connection and at that level are linked to linguistic modes of meaning making
photographs authenicate being there for most people who believe that these events are real
at another level, i actually agree with Walton...it is another aspect which Richard Avedon talks about in ‘borrowed dogs’
the photo is only a trigger
i think we do see our relatives...
it is not your relatives as they see themselves
the photo is only a trigger it is not your relatives as they see themselves"
a painter tries to capture the total person"
photographs did authenticate being there, but that was before
computer manipulation....perhaps now photography creates reality, not authenticates reality
what about man ray
painting can capture the soul
i don't think painters actually try to capture a person...."
Meta_Guest says, "i don't think painting tries to capture the soul...this is very much the historical notion of what painting does...i think we need to rethink this... my thesis is that in the making of a face there is an unmaking of self...painting is not about mastery...at least for me at this moment
privleging things
what do you mean priveleging things?
privileging that one method is superior to others
what method are we talking about?
painting at present is the priviledged
the human condition of image making
in this group we seem to keep returning to it...i am very interested in the relationship with photography and with linguistics"
i agree
what do you think image making has to do with the necessity of the human condition?"
the transparency theory we think we are watching
sorry to cut across themes...donald does not seem so concerned with representation and cultural meaning - seems much more interested in the nature of perception itself.. I think the two are inseparable
the transparency theory we think we are watching tv and we also know we are looking at a process
two have read the paper here
trying to get your points in
i read 'painting, photography and representation....
must have got lost in cyberspace, but it seems to me that donald's contribution to issues of representation are important to deal with...there is another paper 'on nonverbal representation which would also be good...i am interested in representation and a critique of representation as a way beyond poststruturalism
we are back to the notes
the photograph
i like Walton's literality...
read it
why did I type read it?
as soon as we 'read' something, we are engaging in the coded nature of sociality...it strikes me that at the point at which an image 'hits' the body before the decoding it links into body knowing and memory that both is and isn't coded
why did you type read it?
i dont know someone might have just said that
we are going beyond the window
we are talking about the word transparent
that is interesting...to go beyond the window
means that perhaps we start to collapse subject and object"
different meanings
if a technology is transparent, then it means we can't see the operations of ideology
it is the first line of the paper that still has us stumped
if something is opaque, we begin to see the operations of ideology...or at least that is how i understand it....is that how you see it?
look at a photograph is a link to departure
man ray painting can capture the soul"
yes, i think that is right...going to the notes " a photograph is always invisible: is is not that we see...in other words we see it as some
how real, when it is in fact a construct of reality...some-one's construct..it is a question of trying then to re-see it as opaque as an ideological positioning in relation to the world
taking photo does not link you with the object
why not?
The point when painting broke away from photography
what has that got to do with photography and its link with the object?
the collapsing of the subject object is now part of our consciousness
perhaps we need to go back to what me mean by representation and then think whether the term 'representation' is valid in the light of contemporary modes of production
it is not a new reality
yes, i agree that the collapsing of subject/object is part of our consciousness and thus it necessitates a rethinking of our usage of the term 'representation
perhaps presentation...both as a verb(performativity) and a noun(the work that is produced
it is not a new reality "we are trying to invent new paradigms
true...and deleuze and guattari argue that new paradigms require
new languaging..the old terms carry too much baggage"
re reading of marxism
i am talking
i always know when you are talking...there are huge gaps"
what about marxism....marxism is a great tool to analyze contemporary economic relations, but what has it got to do with representation in this context?"
i am suggesting that it will give us a platform for resistance not a binary but an obvious part of the whole
these things mean something
elaborate please
these things mean something. people dealing with social realism"
showing it as it is
beyond that, a marxian analysis of globalization and the attempt to control imaging on the internet...sorry....'showing it 'as it is' is very much the 'transparency' issue...
there is no such thing as 'showing it as it is'...what is disguised are the power relations that are in
perhaps we should be reading foucault"
have you read the unconcious civilization"
no`
by john ralston saul
22.4.98 / 29.4..98
|
