Photography by People Like Us

While we were on the subject of photography, I couldn't help but think about several of my very talented friends. I don't know what constitutes a professional photographer, but my friend Jackson Spencer could take my wedding pictures any day and I'm sure I would like them better than anyone else's work. He does amazing work with everyday objects and lighting. I picked two of my favorite photos by him. The first focusing on an abandoned shed. The black hole in the middle of the picture captures my attention first, and something about not knowing what's inside intrigues me. I love the color scale and how the shed seems to random in such a dense forest. Why would a shed be built there in the first place? Kind of creepy right? The photo really emphasizes this feeling for me. 

The second picture I chose to post is naturally amazing because of the clouds, but the way the lighting makes the person and trees completely black makes the contrast of the sky so much greater. The first thing you see when you look at this picture is the person, then you notice to clouds. The face that is captured in this moment is a one in a million shot. Its something a little kid dreams of seeing when they are pointing out cloud animals. Or is is something that is photoshoped in. As far as I know, this is not a photoshoped cloud. I wish I had the ability to use a camera the way Jackson did. He did complement a picture of my dog once. But for the most part, I just snap pictures whenever and don't think about what they will look like or how lighting will effect the shot. The way he can make nature look ever more beautiful and use lighting to highlight the most fascinating aspects of a scene will always continue to amaze me. 

A quick biography of Jackson Spencer: 

He grew up outside of Washington D.C.. At the beginning of his sophomore year of high school, he began boarding school in Sewanee, TN, which is where I met him. He is now currently enrolled in the University of the South in Sewanee, TN. 

Pottery

Pete Pinnel Fluted Cup

My favorite type of art to make is pottery. I would say that I have a pretty decent ability to make pottery. I wish I had pictures to post of some of my own work, but it is all at home. I started taking pottery classes during my freshman year of high school. I had two amazing teachers, Burki Gladstone and Claire Reishman. I started out small and very bad. Some of my first little cups are not very symmetrical, but I got better. After 2.5 years of taking pottery I was able to throw teapots and pitchers and even make replicas of more well known potters. One of my favorite potters was Pete Pinnell. I made many replicas of his pots. He is well known for his attention to detail in his designs and etchings on each piece.

I would really enjoy taking pottery classes again, but Tech is much of an art school. My high school had one of the best pottery facilities in the country; even better than most colleges, so I was very fortunate. I learned a great deal about pottery and found an art form that I am passionate about. Pottery is something that takes time. I encourage everyone to try it. Not just once, give it a while because no one is a natural. Its a great way to express yourself.

Stephen Alvarez

Stephen Alvarez is a photographer who has mainly worked for national geographic, which has provided him the opportunity to travel all over the world. He graduated from my high school and came to speak there a few years back. We had a couple of his photographs hanging in our chapel. These two photos were the first things that popped into my head when I read Barthes's piece, Camera Lucida. These pictures were taken in Uganda. Maybe its because I saw them everyday for four years, or maybe its because they are just two amazing photographs, but something about them really sticks with me. 

You can almost see hope in the picture of the man and the gun. Why? well I'm not sure. I would think that there would be fear. But the woman holding her child seems glad to see this man. He brings relief. In the second picture, there is a boy running in front of what seems to be a church. The church looks abandoned, but maybe its not. Something about both of these two pictures together really leaves a lasting impression of life in Uganda. I use to love to sit and stare and these two photographs, which is what I did most of the time during chapel services. When I gave tours of our school, these were one of my favorite things to point out. Even though they seemed out of place in a chapel, I liked them there. Why do chapels always have to be perfect and filled with pictures of Jesus? Why not filled with pictures that give you hope about the world right now? I just have to say great work Stephen Alvarez. Go to his website to see more of his work. 

Make your own abstract art...online...

I found this website that allows you to make your own abstract art in a museum type setup. It's nothing super special but it does give you a little more appreciation for making works of art look well together in a room. I tried to draw a few things, and they didn't look to great. I am definitely the type of person that says that a five year old could paint half the things in museums now a days, but I am starting to realize that it takes a little more than a five year old to make everything look good together. One painting isn't so hard to do, you just have to know when to stop really. But when you put paintings together in one room they clash and that is part of art. You have to organize pieces of art together to make them look appealing to an audience. The artist may or may not do this. It may be up to the museum to hire someone to do that, but it is interesting to think about art having to match other art. Try out the website and see for yourself what I am talking about. It's not that easy to match. Feel free to post your works of art in a comment if you'd like!

Ironic Art

Ironic art can be very interesting and puzzling. I "stumbled" upon a website that had several photos that played with several ironic concepts. I posted a couple examples here. One with a bucket pretending to be a well. The well appears to go through the bucket. Maybe since the well goes through the bucket the bucket will will automatically filled with water. The meaning of the picture can be debated from person to person, but no matter what, it is not a normal bucket and well.

Another picture I found interesting was a picture of a spoon that had a shadow of a fork. The picture was very plan, but very ironic. The message or idea behind both of these pictures both have to do with things that very ordinary looked at in a very unordinary way. The pictures make you look at them and do a double take and say "hey, that's not right..." I found looking at all of the pictures I got a very similar feeling. You can go to this link to view them. Have fun and don't get too confused!

High Museum: Take Two

When I ventured to the High Museum for the second time, to find my piece of art for our project, I found myself looking at the art differently. I couldn't really appreciate the art the same way I did before. I would look at something and just think "there is no way I could write about that" or "I don't know what the author's purpose for that is!" I couldn't just look at something and think "that's neat" like I did last time I went to the High. I was on a mission this time. If I thought something was neat, I then had to ask myself could I write about it? And most of the time the answer was no. I did, however, leave the High Museum with two works of art still lingering in my mind.

These two works of art are on two completely opposite ends of the art spectrum. One piece was a painting by Dali and the other was a walkway in the building. So a highly none functional piece that isn't even lifelike and then a completely functional piece that drew me too it because it was so functional.

In the end, I decided to use the Dali painting because it would be a challenge and something out of the ordinary for me. I think that I was so drawn to the walkway because it was familiar. The Dali painting is far beyond familiar, but I can still understand it, at least I think that I can understand it. I can make an argument for my understanding of it which is that Dali wants the viewer to see that position does matter. Different positions can create different images. If you stand really close to this painting all you see are random abstract paintings. If you stand back a little you can see three faces. If you stand back even further you can see a large tiger. So Dali is making the argument that one's position greatly influences what they see in an image. And their position can be referencing their physical position or mental position in my personal opinion. I want to further explore these topics in my analysis of this painting.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words...

After reading Foucault's article, I realized that pictures and words are no where near synonymous. No matter how many words you use, there is no way that an image can be captured by those words. Every detail of a painting or image cannot be described in a set amount of words. You can always describe more. There will always be something missing, or something scene by someone else that you missed.

When I read the text in Foucault's article, I pictured the painting completely differently than the actually painting at the end of the article. I have scene that painting before (especial since it was in the last article we read) but for some reason the way it was described by this author did not paint the same picture in my mind as what the actual painting looks like. The visual images and words compute with tow separate parts of our minds and for some people those parts can be easily connected, but for others like myself connecting words and images is not quite as easy.

Symbols

After reading Bal and Bryson's piece, "Semiotics and Art History" the topic of symbols would leave my mind. I thought about my senior religion class and our definition of a symbol. We described symbols as finite objects that pointed to something beyond the finite. Bal and Bryson described a symbol as being a sign that has to have an interpretant to have meaning. Therefore a symbol has to be interpreted by a person and a connection must be made between the symbol and that symbol's meaning for the symbol to actually have meaning. This definition relates back to my definition of a symbol. A simple picture alone cannot be a symbol, a further meaning must be found behind that picture. The picture points to something beyond itself. 

Symbols and religion can be a little easier to relate to for most people. An example can be a cross. Crosses are everywhere, and they are symbols that point to a higher power. They themselves are just two pieces of wood or metal stuck together, but when interpreted a strong meaning can be found. The same thing can happen with paintings or any other art form. But symbols are not meant to be overly complicated. There needs to be a logical connection between the physical object and the meaning behind that object. 

Our final assignment in senior religion was to create a symbol that defined our lives. Basically a symbol that we lived for and describe how that symbol pointed to our ultimate concern. I chose a book as my symbol. And that book pointed towards knowledge. I know I spent a large amount of time thinking about my symbol and how I would connect it, logically, to my ultimate concern of knowledge. A large amount of effort went into making that connection, so maybe it takes that much effort each time you want to make a connection between a symbol and a meaning. Maybe a painting really does take time. Maybe I just haven't given one my time for it to show me its true meaning, for me to see what the symbol is actually pointing towards. 

Sontag

Sontag was an interesting read for me because she brought up many ideas that I strongly agree with, like the idea that there is such a thing as over interpretation a piece of art. I believe that some art may not have a strong meaning behind it. Maybe the artist was just bored that day and wanted to draw something happy or sad and didn’t mean anything else by that piece of art. Modern society reads way too much into almost everything. Nothing can be just what it is. And Sontag mentions this and she gives the example of modern novelist.

Why can’t a book just be read for pure enjoyment? I like reading, and I like reading and not having to analyze why the author chose a certain word choice or what symbolism the author was using. Why can’t what’s on the page really be what’s meant to be read? Why does society have to always read further when sometimes the artist doesn’t want them too?