So, my cousin sent me this website she found and I got a kick out of it, so I figured I would share it.
Enjoy!
You Know You're A Photographer When...
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
Criticizing Photographs: Chapter 4
This chapter talks about the six different categories of photographs: descriptive, explanatory, interpretive, ethically evaluative, aesthetically evaluative, and theoretical. Descriptive photographs are made to be very accurate in the depictions of events, people, etc. Explanatory photographs are pretty self-explanatory. However a few key details of these types of photographs are that they typically set the subject in a social setting and they are printing in a way that exemplifies the details. Interpretive photographs try to show the viewers how things are, but they don't base anything on scientific facts. They are mostly functional photographs. Ethically evaluative photographs are personal interpretations, but they all make judgments are various aspects of society, both negative and positive judgments. Aesthetically evaluative photography is where the photographer decides what is worthy of consideration. This type of photograph is considered "art" photography. Finally theoretical photography is photographs that make judgments on art and the act of making art. Most of the artists who create this type of photography are concerned with the actual act of making photographs.
I think that this chapter was very interesting because even though it isn't very hard to distinguish different types of photographs, I didn't think that they would have specific guidelines and names. Barrett included in this chapter, how even though the categories have very different characteristics, most photographs don't fit into one category and many photographers don't identify with just one category. This isn't surprising, because it seems like many other art forms have specific categories, but artists just make art. They aren't concerned with what category they art belongs in, or if any at all and I think that's definitely very refreshing to know.
I think that this chapter was very interesting because even though it isn't very hard to distinguish different types of photographs, I didn't think that they would have specific guidelines and names. Barrett included in this chapter, how even though the categories have very different characteristics, most photographs don't fit into one category and many photographers don't identify with just one category. This isn't surprising, because it seems like many other art forms have specific categories, but artists just make art. They aren't concerned with what category they art belongs in, or if any at all and I think that's definitely very refreshing to know.
Criticizing Photographs: Chapter 3
"To interpret an image is to make sense of it. To interpret is to see something as "representing something, or expressing something, or being about something, or being a response to something, or belonging in a certain tradition, or exhibiting certain formal features, etc."
Prior to me attending UNH for art, I was going to a different college for English. In the classes that I took for this major, we had to interpret poetry. I think that most people think of poetry rather than art when they think of the word interpret. Until I started taking college-level studio classes, I was in that same category of people. I think the average person thinks about art in a way that they either accept it or they don't. They might get a specific feeling from a piece of artwork, but the average person doesn't really try to interpret all the smaller parts of a piece of artwork.
Terry Barrett briefly mentions photographs in newspapers or magazines, and how often people overlook all the parts of that photograph. How sometimes people might overlook all of the work that was put in to make even the simplest of photographs. He says that these types of photos are the ones that need interpretation the most. Often times, there is a lot more behind these photographs than what originally meets the eye. He also gives examples of questions that interpreters might ask themselves as they are looking over a photograph. It's important to ask yourself questions as you're viewing a photo because they can help you understand what the photograph is about, besides just the physical characteristics.
I don't think that when I'm looking over a photograph (of mine or someone else's) that I necessarily ask myself questions, like Barrett suggests. I think that I just go with the feelings that the photograph gives me, what I see and think about other things that I have seen in relation to that specific photograph.
Prior to me attending UNH for art, I was going to a different college for English. In the classes that I took for this major, we had to interpret poetry. I think that most people think of poetry rather than art when they think of the word interpret. Until I started taking college-level studio classes, I was in that same category of people. I think the average person thinks about art in a way that they either accept it or they don't. They might get a specific feeling from a piece of artwork, but the average person doesn't really try to interpret all the smaller parts of a piece of artwork.
Terry Barrett briefly mentions photographs in newspapers or magazines, and how often people overlook all the parts of that photograph. How sometimes people might overlook all of the work that was put in to make even the simplest of photographs. He says that these types of photos are the ones that need interpretation the most. Often times, there is a lot more behind these photographs than what originally meets the eye. He also gives examples of questions that interpreters might ask themselves as they are looking over a photograph. It's important to ask yourself questions as you're viewing a photo because they can help you understand what the photograph is about, besides just the physical characteristics.
I don't think that when I'm looking over a photograph (of mine or someone else's) that I necessarily ask myself questions, like Barrett suggests. I think that I just go with the feelings that the photograph gives me, what I see and think about other things that I have seen in relation to that specific photograph.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Persona- Self Portraits... part 1
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Criticizing Photographs: Chapter 2
In this chapter, Terry Barrett explains what it means to describe a photograph. As obvious as it may seem, describing a photograph is more than just stating what the viewer sees within the photograph. It's also more general facts, for example, the environment in which the photograph was taken and the time of day in which the photograph was taken.
There are two sources from which critics can obtain information about photographs. These are internal sources and external sources. Internal sources produce mostly description physical characteristics within the photograph. External sources are libraries, press releases, and the actual artist. Typically when first viewing a photograph (or any piece of artwork) our first instinct as the viewer is to judge the work. There's nothing wrong with this action, as long as the judgments are informed and the information we express is accurate. Accuracy in the description is incredibly important to the critiquing process.
An interesting point that Barrett makes, which I suppose I didn't really think that much about until now, is that subject matter is different than subject. He states that "subject, however, is synonymous with theme or meaning and is more of an interpretive than descriptive endeavor." I think that it many of my other art classes, my classmates (and myself) would often say that just because the painting, photo, drawing was OF a cat meant that the point was that it was a piece of artwork of a cat. If that even makes any sense. In my History of Photography class, we watched this movie called Born Into Brothels (there's a link on my page to a website about the movie). It's about this photographer who goes to live in the red light district and teaches these children how to take photographs. There's a lot more to the story besides just that, but my point is that these children, all between 8-11 years old, were taking photographs of their surroundings, friends, family, etc. When you first looks at these photographs, you might see some poor family, trash in the streets, a smiling face, but there is so much more to the pictures these kids were taking. They were explaining aspects of their lives, without words and in order to fully understand, you have to interpret every detail of every actual object captured within the frame.
Something I really like that Barrett said was that one way to analyze a photograph is to compare and contrast it with other photographs done by the same artist or with photography from another artist. I've seen my professors use this technique often and I think it can be very helpful in expanding the artist's view for their own work.
Barrett mentions over and over again in this chapter is how important describing the photograph is to the rest of the critiquing process. Description is how you get to know a piece of artwork.
There are two sources from which critics can obtain information about photographs. These are internal sources and external sources. Internal sources produce mostly description physical characteristics within the photograph. External sources are libraries, press releases, and the actual artist. Typically when first viewing a photograph (or any piece of artwork) our first instinct as the viewer is to judge the work. There's nothing wrong with this action, as long as the judgments are informed and the information we express is accurate. Accuracy in the description is incredibly important to the critiquing process.
An interesting point that Barrett makes, which I suppose I didn't really think that much about until now, is that subject matter is different than subject. He states that "subject, however, is synonymous with theme or meaning and is more of an interpretive than descriptive endeavor." I think that it many of my other art classes, my classmates (and myself) would often say that just because the painting, photo, drawing was OF a cat meant that the point was that it was a piece of artwork of a cat. If that even makes any sense. In my History of Photography class, we watched this movie called Born Into Brothels (there's a link on my page to a website about the movie). It's about this photographer who goes to live in the red light district and teaches these children how to take photographs. There's a lot more to the story besides just that, but my point is that these children, all between 8-11 years old, were taking photographs of their surroundings, friends, family, etc. When you first looks at these photographs, you might see some poor family, trash in the streets, a smiling face, but there is so much more to the pictures these kids were taking. They were explaining aspects of their lives, without words and in order to fully understand, you have to interpret every detail of every actual object captured within the frame.
Something I really like that Barrett said was that one way to analyze a photograph is to compare and contrast it with other photographs done by the same artist or with photography from another artist. I've seen my professors use this technique often and I think it can be very helpful in expanding the artist's view for their own work.
Barrett mentions over and over again in this chapter is how important describing the photograph is to the rest of the critiquing process. Description is how you get to know a piece of artwork.
Criticizing Photographs: Chapter 1
In the first chapter this book, Terry Barrett, the author, gives an introduction to the various ways to criticize photographs.
I think one of the biggest points that Barrett makes is that the word criticism has a negative connotation to it. He explains that art critics are not passing judgment, but instead are trying to gain a better understanding of art itself. By talking and writing about art, the critics are also able to gain an increase appreciation for all art forms. He says that critics typically use one or more of four ways to criticize art. These are describing the art, interpret it, evaluate it and theorize about it.
There are several types of criticism explained in this chapter; exploratory aesthetic criticism, argumentative aesthetic criticism, applied criticism, and theoretical criticism. The first two deal with all types of art while the last two types are specific to photography criticism. Exploratory aesthetic criticism is essentially when the critic describes the work physically so the reader will get the feeling of actually viewing the piece of artwork. Argumentative aesthetic criticism is mainly an explanation of the critics judgments of the piece and an attempt at persuading the reader to feel the same. Applied criticism is "practical, immediate and directed at the work." Theoretical criticism tries to define photography and typically deals with the aesthetic qualities of specific photographs. I think what's most important to remember about these different types of criticism is that it is what you make of it. It comes in all different shapes, sizes and colors, but it can all be useful for later projects.
I think that reading art criticism helps us learn more about art as a whole. It helps us think more clearly when creating our own pieces and it helps us become better at critiquing the work of our colleagues.
I think one of the biggest points that Barrett makes is that the word criticism has a negative connotation to it. He explains that art critics are not passing judgment, but instead are trying to gain a better understanding of art itself. By talking and writing about art, the critics are also able to gain an increase appreciation for all art forms. He says that critics typically use one or more of four ways to criticize art. These are describing the art, interpret it, evaluate it and theorize about it.
There are several types of criticism explained in this chapter; exploratory aesthetic criticism, argumentative aesthetic criticism, applied criticism, and theoretical criticism. The first two deal with all types of art while the last two types are specific to photography criticism. Exploratory aesthetic criticism is essentially when the critic describes the work physically so the reader will get the feeling of actually viewing the piece of artwork. Argumentative aesthetic criticism is mainly an explanation of the critics judgments of the piece and an attempt at persuading the reader to feel the same. Applied criticism is "practical, immediate and directed at the work." Theoretical criticism tries to define photography and typically deals with the aesthetic qualities of specific photographs. I think what's most important to remember about these different types of criticism is that it is what you make of it. It comes in all different shapes, sizes and colors, but it can all be useful for later projects.
I think that reading art criticism helps us learn more about art as a whole. It helps us think more clearly when creating our own pieces and it helps us become better at critiquing the work of our colleagues.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Favorite....
This picture is my favorite because I think it kind of represents my life in a sense. Not just that I live with my parents while I'm in college (hence my father making dinner) but that if you look around on the counter, and in the cabinets, everything is just all of the place. The counter is cluttered with mail, papers, ceramic bowls, baskets, and a variety of other things, however, my mother knows where everything is. Everything on that counter and in those cabinets is supposed to be there. That's its place. I think that's how my life is, in a way. I'm in a place where I'm always running from one place to the next and everything in my life is just... all over the place but I know where everything is. I'm an "organized" mess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)