Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Can I have your attention please?
This is Sarah of sheffield and I. It is very early in the evening of June 24th 2004. I sought out the photo as Sarah reminded me of the event the other day and how later that night I lost one of my vintage shoes, in the comments here, Sarah of Sheffield explains ...
The photograph is an artefact of identity, but of course it could be a fake identity. I think the picture is quite weird as Sarah is looking into the camera and I am not - but I thought I was. Very weird. It makes me look a bit disingenuine.
(But now this post is not about that. Although of course I do recommend Sarahof sheffield's blog - and you will see she mentions two folk singers here who were on a tv programme DrKate mentioned here and which I watched and liked. Synchronicity, man.)
I have started to read this excellent book. Only the introduction so far but am really finding it provocative and absorbing. It talks about the MATERIALITY of IMAGES and at first I thought I would want to challenge all it said in terms of it not applying to online photographs... drawing on Barthes, the editors (Edwards and Hart) remind us of the photograph as object, as an item to hold which accrues history .
This kind of thing. Or this.
Edwards and Hart say that a photograph is three dimensional, not two. It can be turned and held. And yet today we can say that many images - perhap the most commonly seen images (?) are digitised - on tv or cinema or pc or camera phone or playstation etc etc. Therefore they are not held in that same way.
But then if you think about the notion of SPACE as a more abstract thing, as a metaphor and of materiality as metaphor - then maybe we can STILL talk about the materiality of the image. We can think about the materiality of images and the role they play in people's lives. The editors in their introduction say, ' 'Materiality translates the abstract and representational 'photography' as objects that exist in time and space.' (page 2)
Anyway I want to pursue this idea, puzzling about whether digitised images can be considered as material artefcats. I am going to looking at a lot of work around images and stuff including this book and this by Annette Kuhn.
I'll keep you posted ... as Digigran would say.
- When visitors come
- Cool game
- Can I have your attention please?
- transduction - creativity- culture...
- In the meantime though,
- I just have
- The Inbetweenies
- getting all horticultural
- Happy Valentines?
- Learning from DrKate:- Photographs as artefacts o...
- Guantanamo Bay
- Self help
- White Flower in the Cascade Mountains
- Balloons are magic
- Cappuccino Community and the Quoran
- something to say
- Obviously I was appalled by
- ▼ February (22)
- ► 2005 (378)