Reading Discussion

In Defense of the Poor Image - Hito Steyerl

Today's technology allows us to share more high resolution photographs, just with a little longer wait time. However, it is social media and the need for speed that allows lower resolutions to be more widely accepted in today's society. Before we had the ability to share the choice of high or low quality images, technology developments focused on how to make images and their resolution a better quality. Now that we have advanced this technology, the ideas of the public has also shifted. We no longer care about the resolution or quality of an image, because we don't actually care about the image. We care about the "story" within the image.

Social media today has brought about different values. We care more about sharing what we are doing and how fast our image "story" gets out to the public or to our friends. This concept isn't just seen through social media, but through all online media types. The recommended file type and resolution for an image uploaded online is either .jpg or .png, with a resolution size of no more than 72 dpi. This isn't necessary because the internet or our technology can't handle a 300 dpi image (with a slightly slower loading time), it is because human response times have gone down. In my own web research I found that the human response time to wait for a loaded image or website page is only 7 seconds. When interacting with technology we want things fast. If the quality of an image is diminished because of this, we are willing to accept it.

We consume more images with our eyes and mind today than the past. Although we would like to say we store all of these images in our mind for forever, this is not the case. Images we see on social medias such as Snapchat, Instagram, and Facebook are scrolled through or see at a fast pace. In some instances we only see the image for a limited time before they "disappear" from the viewers eyes for forever.

My own ideas on quality of images has not changed. I like the common public accept lower quality images when it comes to online and social media. If it gets the story across as fast as possible, lower quality images makes the most sense. However, as an artistic and designer, I appreciate the use of high quality photographs, especially when used through other medias such as print and film. I am one of those people that would rather wait for a movie to come out online or see it in a theater in a better quality, then watch one that has lower quality, for me, the resolution quality affects my interpretation of the "story" of the movie, as well as how my experience is.

Copyright terms have also been blurred when it comes to images and their quality. In term of piracy, I still believe the original owner of a photograph should be given credit. Just because someone takes an image and changes its resolution, I don't think it should make you the original owner. I don't think I would mind them owning the different photograph, I just think that credit should be given to the original person. This should cover all instances. Whether you are an abstract artist using the original photo to create new work, or just a normal person sharing the image with others.




Roland Barthes - Extracts from Camera Lucida

In the beginning of Roland Barthes Essay, he talks about how photographs are fake, and can not represent the actual moment in time they were taken. This is just like what we have discussed in many of our class period. He also goes into detail about why people may choose to photograph a certain thing and their motives.Barthes also goes into how photography is two distinct orders, one is chemical and the other is physical.

I think Barthes is trying to communicate how it feels to be portrayed in the deadpan style of photography, but I only got this from inferences of our class. But I can't understand it. I don't know if the language is above my head, or if the whole essay is just too abstract for something that could be defined in a simpler way.

In all honesty, I found the essay hard to follow, probably because of the large vocabulary or its structured as a random thought essay. Barthes makes lots of comparisons about photography with other objects or situation, but I think sometimes it goes overboard. I can't really state how I feel about any of the things inside the essay or how i feel, because I am simply confused.




A Philosophy of Photography - By Vilem Flusser

This is the second time I have read Vilem Flusser's essay, A Philosophy on Photography. I have realised that by reading the essay more than once, I was able to better understand the concepts Flusser talks about, as well as notice little details I didn't read the first time. Flusser's states human civilization has seen two fundamental turning points in its time. One being the invention of writing and the other being the invention of technical images. Human civilization and its way of life changed forever because of these two inventions. Flusser presents the reader with ideas about how important photography is to the human race, society, and individual minds.

Images from photography is a concept of taking a moment from the 4-dimensional world down to a single snapshot in 2-dimension. An image has more meaning than what is just on the surface. Our eyes scan the image to try and understand the image and then try and think of the story behind it. A photograph is a window that transports its viewer to a new world. Within this world, we try and find symbols and create a story. This story may not be the original concept of the photograph. In order to fully understand these symbols and meanings of the photograph, we would need to read the mind of the photographer. Flusser states these images "impose" themselves on humanity. I think what he is saying is instead of finding our way in the world, we now rely more on photography images.

Both text and images have a complex relationship between one another and throughout history, they have taken different roles. Before photography writing was dominant. However, the introduction of images soon took over. In today's society, we see more of a balance between the two. Text and images work together to help a viewer understand the particular subject matter. Text decodes the abstraction of an image, while the image incodes the clarity of the text. They both are important in recording history, and because of these inventions, time has become viewed as very chronological. The pen and camera are the tools also called the apparatuses. They can be used for many things such as cultural or conceptual projects. With the invention of apparatuses society has split into two groups, the "haves" and "have-nots".

Cameras are not meant to change the world they are meant to change the meaning of the world in a symbolic manner. With the advancement of the camera through time, this has also affected the functionnaire, or photographer/artist. Digital camera today have become so advanced we no longer have to focus on the technical details, we can now focus on the overall image and concept we wish to portray. However, these machines are still just machines. In order to really express ourselves, we still need to do the work needed to take our abstract thoughts from our minds to paper. We can not allow ourselves to have our creativity dictated by a machine without question.

I thought Flusser's essay was very thought provoking. I do however believe my thoughts on the essay have not changed much from my original reading. I agree with most of the abstract thoughts Flusser talks about. I think it is important as humans to remember that writing and photography is an important part of expressing individual thoughts. I also believe that viewers of the work must understand that their interpretation may not be the same as the artists or other peoples. It is clear that photography has created a large impact on human civilization, especially today with social media. I think we need to remind ourselves that an image isn't always what it may seems to be.