Times Art

Response to "Rosler after Thought"

2008-03-11T13:15:00.001-07:00

In the reading Rosler starts off with of ton of photos that portray a lot of poor people or ads about alcohol and such, which includes little stories underneath. He talks about photography and how it was used to sort of change how we view issues and to give charity by the affect of the photo. Next, he goes into documentary forms of photography through the 20th century addressing the second world war and Vietnam causing me to want to use my documentary to make change. I like how he informed us how we use the photo tool to help the misfortune by showing the fortunate, hoping to get a donation or something. However, he goes into the different affects or consequences of it and how it might be done, bring up how others may view it. Then, he brings up metaphorical stuff and Bowery's of which i don't understand.

Response to "Lev Manovich WHAT IS DIGITAL CINEMA?"

2008-01-29T13:28:00.000-08:00

Honestly, the way that he described how the old cinema and animation use to work together, I don't understand how they got through it with the patience it required. I agree with the fact that, with all the digital imaging and 3d animation going on, it does kind of take away from the art and craftsmanship used by the artist who busted their asses to paint etc.., but technology is growing and getting better every day so it's only for the better. Plus, I think that all the digital technology for the cinema has been created for people like me who are interesting in the field and want to do it but, are to lazy to do it the old fashion way (yeah, new media). However, I am bothered by the fact that it's damn near impossible to understand or to even know what's real anymore; I would like to be able to distinguish the difference between a great shot by the director or great CGI.

Here I am

2008-01-16T11:40:00.000-08:00

Hey everyone!!!!