i disagree with the idea that the film maker's hand is not in the work. if i see a tim burton film i can always tell it was his because it clearly has his hand and his doings in it. my concept in defense of this is that the way a film maker applies his hand is in the form of the idea. the entire film is an exerpt of their imagination manifested in psysical communicating form. how they choose to interpret their idea, and apply their concepts of aesthetics are all a part of their own hand.
i would actually like to sign the bottom of the first things first essay. i completely agree with their take on capitalism. in the benjamin essay he presents us with the idea that int he past art served as a functional thing, a thing that was generally spiritual. in todays society, with its growing technology, we have grown and changed as well. art serves a different function, but it still functions. art serves as an advertising function. people are now exploiting art's concept of retaliation and how it can legislate political views, and they have turned it in their favor. what are we going to do in response to this? looking back on history, what has happened is we have become subject to change. but what can we change? what can we do now? how can we choose to move on further? the only logical thing that comes to mind is what was mentioned earlier in the benjamin essay, which was looking into karl marx's statements on capitalism is that capitalism was going to destroy itself by its own hand.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Justin Price questions to reading long...
1) Is there any difference between or classifications between the concepts of "process reproduction" and "technical reproduction" as well as "manual reproduction" and "mechanical reproduction", or are they simply reworded statements used to describe identical
ideas? And if they are groups of classifications that do differ, are there further subgroups with these concepts of reproduction?
2) In section IX the article likens film makers to "magicians" in that their hands never touch the reproduced image but isn't this false? In olden times and even more so in current times, don't film makers have a very active role in how the world is presented, not only in story or physiologically but through lighting, various equipments used, people and scenarios portrays and so on?
ideas? And if they are groups of classifications that do differ, are there further subgroups with these concepts of reproduction?
2) In section IX the article likens film makers to "magicians" in that their hands never touch the reproduced image but isn't this false? In olden times and even more so in current times, don't film makers have a very active role in how the world is presented, not only in story or physiologically but through lighting, various equipments used, people and scenarios portrays and so on?
wow
Yeah this reading was very confusing.
my first question is if this paper actually had a structure to it. I kind of noticed a pattern the way he was talking first about reproduction then about paintings and then videos, drama and stage work, and then dadaism. It was a lot of random things that i really dont know if it had a stucture. If it did I would be a lot less confused. I dont know what he was actually trying to prove.
my second question is I dont know what he meant when he kept on saying "cult". I kept picturing a secret cult in the middle of the woods dancing around a fire... but i'm sure thats not what he meant.
my first question is if this paper actually had a structure to it. I kind of noticed a pattern the way he was talking first about reproduction then about paintings and then videos, drama and stage work, and then dadaism. It was a lot of random things that i really dont know if it had a stucture. If it did I would be a lot less confused. I dont know what he was actually trying to prove.
my second question is I dont know what he meant when he kept on saying "cult". I kept picturing a secret cult in the middle of the woods dancing around a fire... but i'm sure thats not what he meant.
questions: ...Mechanical Reproduction
woah! This reading is intense. I feel very confused...
Is the author in favor of film or not? Most of the time I think he is, and then other times I can't tell.
I don't understand what he means when he talks about "aura" in part IX
"...the aura that envelops the actor vanishes, and with it the aura of the figure he portrays"
Is he saying that film is an art that poeple don't fully understand? part XV
"The public is an examiner, but an absent-minded one."
Is the author in favor of film or not? Most of the time I think he is, and then other times I can't tell.
I don't understand what he means when he talks about "aura" in part IX
"...the aura that envelops the actor vanishes, and with it the aura of the figure he portrays"
Is he saying that film is an art that poeple don't fully understand? part XV
"The public is an examiner, but an absent-minded one."
Monday, September 24, 2007
uploading problems etc.
Hey guys,
Sabrina contacted ryan and he said that if it is impossible for you to upload make sure to bring in your flash drive with you image as well as all of your source images on it. If you do so I think you s hould be ok (also you have to have your print... duh) but do that and I think you'll be ok.
Hope this helps!
Madeline
p.s. if you have time and you can contact ryan and double check with him
Sabrina contacted ryan and he said that if it is impossible for you to upload make sure to bring in your flash drive with you image as well as all of your source images on it. If you do so I think you s hould be ok (also you have to have your print... duh) but do that and I think you'll be ok.
Hope this helps!
Madeline
p.s. if you have time and you can contact ryan and double check with him
me too.
i also am having trouble uploading.
i tried several times yesterday and today but it doesn't work.
i wonder what we should do?!?
i tried several times yesterday and today but it doesn't work.
i wonder what we should do?!?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)