Read Sontag's essays "Melancholy Objects" and "The Heroism of Vision," and explain how Sontag's argument that "the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own" (57) and "Despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitve relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment" (111) relates to the photographs by Ole Marius Joergensen and Martha Cooper/Henry Chalfant.
Finally, send me a photograph of an object that is important to you. Do not explain the significance of the object, but do give your photograph a title. I am going to post these to the blog, so don't send me any images you don't want to share.
The photographs by Ole Marius Joergensen and Martha Cooper/Henry Chalfant relate to Sontag’s argument that “the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people’s reality, and eventually in one’s own” (57) because they bring out a sense of actually being there. Looking at Joergensen’s pictures in Norway makes it seem like we are exploring Norway with his astronaut dressed friend. In Cooper and Chalfant’s photos, one can feel as though they are personally passing by the subway and seeing the art in person. Even though we may not physically be there, we get to share the experience because we view it just the way the photographer views it. This is how “everybody” gets to become a “tourist” through seeing a picture. The photographs also relate to Sontag’s statement that “despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment” (111) because the photographs do not explain anything to us. There is nothing to “understand” or feel sympathy for. Instead, one looks at it and cannot help but to gaze upon the beauty of the subject that we otherwise might have overlooked before in person.
ReplyDeleteIn Sontag's essays "Melancholy Objects" the argument that "the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own"[57] and "the Heroism of Vision" the argument Despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes empotional detachment" [111] relates to the photographs by Ole Marius Joergenses and Martha Cooper/Henry Chalfant because it gives an opportunity like we are the ones there exploring these places. The scenery and form of life the photographs have give us the chance to visualize what is really there. This also demonstrates as Sontag says "the photographer is an armed version of solitary walker reconnoitering, stalking, cruising the urban inferno,the voyeuristic stroller who discovers the city as a landscape of voluptuous extremes." For these photographs make everybody a tourists because it suddenly gives them the idea that they have now visited these scenarios; therefore these photographs do really invite us to relate to the world without to physically being there. These photographs however create that emotional detachment because they do not explain to us what the reality of being in these places is like. WE do however engage as a tourist but without the emotions that physically being there would feel like.
ReplyDeleteThe photographs by Ole Marius Jorgensen and Martha Cooper/Henry Chalfant validate Sontag's argument that "the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own" (p. 57) because it allows the viewer to delve into the memories of these photographers and experience the setting in which these photos were taken along with the photographers. In Joergensen's photos, the viewer is able to discover new and different sights in Norway with similar tourists, the photographer and the "astronaut", who also are experiencing the different locations for the first time. In Cooper and Chalfant's photos, the viewer is taken back in time to 1980's New York City and given the sights of the graffiti art that covered the subways. Similar to Cooper and Chelfant, the viewer may also begin to understand the culture behind the art through viewing different pieces of subway graffiti. Joergensen and Cooper/Chelfant's photos are taken in a way where the viewer can experience locations such as Norway and 1980's New York City just how the photographer saw and experienced them.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, the photographs by Joergensen and Cooper/Chalfant validate Sontag's argument that "despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment" (p. 111) because the photos do not explain anything. In Joergensen's photos, there is a man dressed as an astronaut amongst different locations in Norway, and in Cooper and Chalfant's photos, there are different subway arts being shown in 1980's New York City. No clear message is being sent. Instead, these photographs nourish the viewer's senses by giving them a snapshot in time, allowing them to take in what their eyes can see, and decoding their thoughts and emotions on it without even knowing how the photographers really felt and what they were really trying to evoke in their photos. As Sontag states on page 111, "If photographs are messages, the message is both transparent and mysterious".
Sontag’s arguments, “the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people’s reality, and eventually in one’s own” (57) and “despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites in an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment” (111) relate to the photographs by Ole Marius Joergensen and Martha Cooper/Henry Chalfant by bringing the viewers along with them on their journeys, making them tourists. By staging the astronaut in Joergensen’s photographs, it engages the viewers and draws them in to see the beautiful scenery, making them feel like they were there, in the same spot. The photos taken by Cooper/Chalfant bring awareness to their viewers by showing them the beauty of graffiti in the environment around trains and New York City. These photographs bring awareness to the beauty of the surroundings, but take away the emotional attachment because the viewers are unable to physically experience the full effect. They are only able to admire the photographs.
ReplyDeleteSontag's essay "Melancholy Objects" was about the power of photographs and the capability of the image and the power it has to be able to share the beauty/experience with the viewers. Joregensen's photographs were taken of a man in an astronaut suit throughout Norway, really capturing what Sontag's essay says, "the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own." The man is in an astronaut suit seeming as if he is in a way exploring these new sights. Cooper and Chalfont captured images of old subway trains covered in graffiti. Many people see graffiti on the streets and think of it as trashy or think that people have destructed something, but in the photographs taken by Cooper/Chalfont, the graffiti actually looks like a work of art. "Nobody ever discovered ugliness through photographs. But many, through photographs, have discovered beauty."
ReplyDeleteIn the photographs by Ole Marius Jorgensen and Martha Cooper/Henry Chalfant we as viewers are being granted access to the photographer’s memories of a particular moment, perhaps a feeling. Sontag explained this by saying that “the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people’s reality, and eventually one’s own” (57). When a photographer takes a picture they are attempting to memorialize a moment in time. But the thing is that no one else will ever feel the same way looking at that picture as the photographer did when they took it. Sontag says, “The lure of photographs, their hold on us, is that they offer at one and the same time a connoisseur’s relation to the world and a promiscuous acceptance of the world” (81). The casual viewer of a friends vacation photos can see all of the wonderful places that their friend has been to but he is unable to share the emotional connection his friend has to the photos by having lived the experience firsthand. And over time as the photographers memory fades so will his deep emotional attachment to the pictures.
ReplyDeleteThe photographs by Ole Marius Joergensen and Martha Cooper and Henry Chalfant relate to Sontag’s assertion that “the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people’s reality, and eventually in one’s own” (57) because they allow the viewers to feel as if they are actually there. The point-of-view angles used in these photographs allow the viewer to be fully immersed in the scene. Joergensen’s photographs allow the viewer to feel as if they are adventuring through Norway with the astronaut, while In Cooper and Chalfant’s photographs immerse the viewer in 1980's New York where subway trains were a prime medium for the art of graffiti. Although the viewers may not have ever been to New York or Norway, we are able to share these experiences with the photographer, thus becoming a tourist right along with them. Sontag also states, “despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment.” (111) The emotional detachment is especially evident in the photographs previously mentioned as the viewers are left without explanation of the photographs. For instance we may wonder why the individual adventuring through Norway is dressed as an astronaut. What is the significance of this? In addition, we are left wondering why there are two men hanging from the subway train in Cooper and Chalfant's photographs. Had the viewers really been there in that moment, there would be more of an emotional attachment and understanding of the situation.
ReplyDeleteSontag's statement claiming that "essentially the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own (57)" seeks to explain that a photographer is like a detective exploring other people's world as well as their own when taking pictures. When a photographer is taking pictures of other people, they are trying to capture a specific moment in time and puts themselves out of the frame in order to capture that reality as it is when they are not present. They are exploring realities outside of their own norm and this is what makes them a tourist. Part of photographing includes capturing what one thinks is beautiful, or worth capturing; when photographing in this manner, one is exploring their consciousness and own reality because they are consciously picking out what to capture. This can be seen as an exploration of oneself where making these types of decisions can portray ones view of the world and ones perception; hence, being a tourist in ones reality. In Ole Marius Joergensen's photographs portraying an astronaut within the landscape of Norway show both tourism of other people's reality and the photographers, in a humorous way. Joergensen captures poses of what people would usually do (the reality of what they would do in that place and time) with humor and portrays a unique correlation between life on earth and life outside of earth. He explores the foundation of a "normal" photograph and adds a unique twist in which he finds beautiful; the twist he incorporated in his pictures is the exploration of his consciousness (his reality). These abstract and different ideas are what he finds interesting and beautiful.
ReplyDeleteSontag's argues that "despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes atheistic awareness and promotes emotional detachment (111)." She is trying to say that even though pictures are trying to convey a certain message to its audience, it is also inviting them to see the beauty of what the picture contains. The promotion of emotional detachment is derived from the lack of description a photographer might give and leave room for interpretation; here, it is up to the audience to interpret according to their perception. Through interpretation there is distance that one imposes in order to not be deeply affected by the picture, or message. Sontag describes this as a "surreal [distance] imposed, and bridged, by the photograph: the social distance and the distance in time (58)." In Martha Copper and Henry Chalfant's photographs, they are trying to revive the portrayal of graffiti as beautiful. Through these images, they are trying to convey the beauty of a different kind of art people have forgotten about; today, most people correlate graffiti with crime, yet Chalfant sees New York back in the day. The promotion of emotional detachment, here, is seen as the audience and the photographer impose the "distance in time" Sontag talks about in the book.
The photographs by Ole Marius Joergensen and Martha Cooper and Henry Chalfant prove that Sontag's argument is true. On page 57 she states "the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own." This is proven when we look at Joergensen's photos. When people travel to a new place or experience things that are new to us we like to document them and what better way to document things that are new and exciting than taking photographs of them. Also on page 111 Sontag states that " Despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment." This is also proven through the photographs of Jorgensen, Cooper, and Chalfant because since we were not present during the time that these photographs were taken we do not really see the full meaning of them. When we take pictures we do them because it means something to us. We are taking pictures of important things that are happening in our lives that we want to have memory of but while it may be meaningful to us and while we may be emotionally attached to the photos other people may have no emotion towards the photos at all.
ReplyDeleteSontag's argument that "the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own" (57) relates to the photographs by Ole Marius Joergenson and Martha Cooper/Henry Chalfant by allowing the viewer to enjoy the subject’s experience as a spectator. In the photos by Joergenson, the photographs allow the viewer to become a part of the astronaut’s journey almost as if it he or she was standing alongside the subject as an in-person on-looker. The photographs by Cooper and Chalfant allow the viewer to have a look into the dated New York subway graffiti, and get a tourist experience or relive an unknown, underground aspect of the era because the images are so vivid. "Despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitve relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment,” (Sontag, pg.111) relates to the photographs by Joergenson because the viewer instantly becomes detached from their own world or environment and becomes enveloped in that of the astronaut and his journey. The photographs by Cooper and Chalfant provide a solid aesthetic awareness of the actual beauty of the graffiti subways, a look at the past, and a look at a form of art. Although it may not be your typical canvas or imagery, the subway graffiti possesses its own beauty. Both sets of photographs are captivating and garner the viewer’s full attention and evoke a certain level of emotion, without personal commitment. Although viewing photographs does not place you in the scenario, the viewer comes away with the feeling of having lived the experience himself or herself at a certain level, without having gone through physical aspect of it.
ReplyDeleteSontag writes “the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people’s reality, and eventually in one’s own” (57). This is particularly seen in Ole Marius Joergensen’s series “Space Travels Through Norway.” Photographs may trigger one to believe that he/she is experiencing the situation represented by the photos. This is why many people may look at photos, because they feel as though they are experiencing that moment with the photographer; this creates some kind of emotion in the viewer. On the contrary, Joergensen’s photographs also give viewers a sense of detachment. Sontag explains, “Despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitive relation the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment” (111). In “Space Travels Through Norway,” Joergensen photographs a friend dressed in a space suit with different landscapes as the background. The photos are interesting and unique; however, the viewer may feel a sense of confusion while observing them. The viewer lacks the reasoning behind the photos. Why would Joergensen choose to shoot someone in a space suit? Is there some kind of emotional tie with Joergensen and astronauts? This may leave the viewer feeling left out and therefore detached. Martha Cooper and Henry Chalfant’s photographs may also give the viewer a sense of tourism and reality. Cooper and Chalfant’s photos are of vivid graffiti on subways in New York. These photos may give spectators a feeling of reality and tourism by making them feel as though they are in the moment and looking directly at the graffiti themselves. The fact that the photos are vibrant and people are seen going about their lives’ on the subway creates a feeling of reality. In addition, looking as the photographs of graffiti may leave the viewer with many questions, leading to detachment. Why did the person spray paint on the subway? What is the meaning of the art? In looking at the photos, we are unable to fully understand the situation occurring in the art. If we were actually experiencing the events ourselves, we would have a better understanding and, thus, more attachment to the images of Joergensen and Cooper/Chalfant; yet, even though the spectator is not actually in New York experiencing the subways, or in Norway looking at the scenery, he or she is able to view the photos just as the photographers did when they took them.
ReplyDeleteIn Sontag’s essay, “Melancholy Objects,” she states, “the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own" (page 57). Ole Marius Joergensen photographs represent a man dressed in a space suit, like an astronaut, and is posing in some photographs throughout the Fjords of western Norway. As many people travel, the norm is to take pictures in front of famous and beautiful landmarks to capture the precious moment. Tourists are human beings that look beyond their comfort zone to explore and create their own memories to say, “I went to Paris and seen the Eiffel Tower”, “I have walked through ruins of the Incas known as Macchu Picchu.” Pictures are taken to make sure events happened, its our proof. The astronaut in each picture represents a person trying to discover new landmarks and set foot there to make sure they can say, “I came here.” In relation to, “The Heroism of Vision,” Sontag states, “Despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment.” The photographs by Ole Marius Joergensen and Martha Cooper/ Henry Chalfant relate to this quote because of the openness and inviting they are in the attempt they had given to show the viewers about their work. Cooper captured the photographs and Chalfant used his artistic and cultural knowledge to create the graffiti. Chalfant said, “I don’t know if it’s nostalgia, but people like to see the beginnings of things, and it does go beyond just the art, beyond the graffiti.” He wanted the people to see the history beyond just the sprayed paint on the trains. The viewers that admire the pictures can see what the author, photographer, and artist put to show and experience it through just looking at the picture and tries to understand the meaning behind it. There is no emotional attachment to a picture unless a viewer was there while the photographs were taken in Norway with Joergensen or with Cooper and Chalfant in New York.
ReplyDeleteSusan Songtag argues that “the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people’s reality, and eventually in one’s own.” When an individual brings a camera with them it is generally to capture a certain time, place or event and when these photos are shared is when tourism begins. The photos captured by Ole Marius Joergensen gives the viewer a sense of adventure in a comical fashion. As the viewer, we also embark on this adventure as if we were in the moment ourselves as the astronaut explores the streets and countryside of Norway. Similarly, Martha Cooper and Henry Chalfant captured the subways trains of New York emphasizing on the street art. This is particularly nostalgic as it reminds the viewer of American culture through graffiti. The viewer becomes the tourist as they enjoy the photography of others. While the photographers themselves saw the reality before the images were created. Sontag also argues that “despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs invites is an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment. In a sense photography is misunderstood, photographers do not necessarily capture an image to allow a viewer understanding but rather to allow them to enjoy something they may otherwise never see. Ole Marius Joergensen’s images allow the viewer to experience the beauty of Norway with a twist as an astronaut is also the star of the image. A viewer will never know or “understand” why the photographer chose an astronaut suit as the center of the images but they can see the beauty of the image regardless. The images presented in Joergensen’s work force the viewer to let go of reality and enjoy what is simply presented. Similarly, Martha Cooper and Henry Chalfant capture the intrigue and beauty of street art. A viewer may speculate what the art is supposed to mean; however, it is more important that the viewer embrace the beauty and talent of the street art and photography. People have a habit of trying to over-analyze everything rather than enjoying what is. Both of Sontag’s arguments are valid as we are all tourists in one form or another and we all should embrace what we see rather than try to over-analyze with logic.
ReplyDeleteOle Marius Joergensen’s photography is inspired by natural beauties of Norway’s landscape; he uses this beauty in a humorous manner by dressing up his friend in an astronaut’s suit. Joergensen originally looked at American culture for inspiration, however, he found inspiration in his backyard. Sontag argues that “the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people’s reality, and eventually in one’s own” (57). Joergen’s photography represents a sense of exploration through humor and a beguiled subject. His friend (the astronaut) was captured in various locations that demonstrate a tourist’s endeavors. Sontag is right to argue that the camera makes a person the tourist, whether that is done artistically, humorously, or through one reality or another.
ReplyDeleteMartha Cooper and Henry Chalfant work in tandem to create and preserve a culture. Cooper offered her skills as a photographer to capture the work of Chalfant, yet there was a deeper realization than providing proof of their art. Sontag argues that "Despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment" (111). The photographs provide connections to the world that exemplifies an underground culture. This culture is preserved by the uniqueness of the aesthetic and brings forth an emotional detachment by observing the artwork objectively rather than subjectively.
Sontag’s argument in “Melancholy Objects” that "the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own" (57) relates to the photographs taken by Ole Marius Joergensen and Martha Cooper/Henry Chalfant because the pictures that they offer to us allow us to see their view of the places and objects that they photograph. We may not have the opportunity to see Norway or the graffiti on the subway trains in New York ourselves, but we are able to experience and appreciate them because of the photographs each photographer has shared. This is how we become tourists ourselves by being able to see things we would not normally be able to experience. Sontag’s argument from "The Heroism of Vision" that "Despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment" (111) relates to these photographs as well by allowing us to see these photographs and understand what they are and why they were taken, but we also have no emotional attachment to them because we are not physically there in Norway or New York experiencing the views for ourselves. The photographs may interest us because they are creative and fascinating, but we do not have any emotional attachment to them.
ReplyDeleteSontag's argument that "the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own" (57) and "Despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment" (111) relates to the photographs by Ole Marius Joergensen and Martha Cooper/Henry Chalfant by having the viewer experience being a tourist without actually being there. Joergensen’s photographs are absolutely stunning. Sontag states that, “if photographs are messages, the message is both transparent and mysterious” (pg. 111) meaning that photographs can be defined in any personal way. The spacesuit was used in a personal and humorous manner, but it can also be seen through a different point of view, such as observing our surroundings as if we have discovered a new planet. Now, in Martha Cooper’s photographs we are taken back into time by a different type of art, which is graffiti. They explore culture and history through the art on trains and provide a larger background to get a feeling of actually being there. Every photograph is beautiful in their own way.
ReplyDeleteOle Marius Jorgensen’s photographs of his friend in a space suit make a perfect example for Sontag’s argument. Sontag argues that "the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own" (57). Right now I am sitting in the library where there are no mountains, there is no breeze, and the air does not smell of nature. When I look at the photographs taken by Jorgensen it’s almost like I am in in Norway with his friend looking at the beautiful scenery. When you look at the photographs they are so captivating that you can get a sense for what the weather must feel like, how the air might smell, how the mist of the waterfall may feel like or the sound of the water crashing at the bottom. In the picture of Jorgensen’s friend in the room with the T.V. I imagine the humming of a vending machine. Although these photographs are not mine and I have never been to Norway myself, I was able to get all of this because I turned his reality into my own. Sontag also argues that "Despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment" (111). The photographs by Martha Cooper and Henry Chalfant defend this argument well. The photographs of the graffiti art in New York City are very beautiful but I feel emotionally unattached because I don’t really know the story behind the art just by looking at the photographs. I suppose it would be the same with the photographs taken by Jorgensen. If I had not read the article of why he was taking pictures of a man in a space suit I would not have known the meaning behind it. I was able to picture details about the photographs because I had been giving information about the pictures but if I had not I don’t know if what I pictured would have been the same.
ReplyDeleteUpon viewing Ole Marius Joergensen’s and Martha Cooper/Henry Chalfant’s photographs, as viewers, we are able to go engross ourselves into that specific moment in time, and feeling as though we were truly there. Sontag asserts that “the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people’s reality, and eventually in one’s own” (57). This can be seen directly with Joergensen’s prints. As humorous as it, poking fun at tourists as Joergensen mentions, we still undergo a sense of having been there firsthand, undertaking this adventure with the astronaut and observing the beauty along with him and the photographer. The astronaut in the middle of these scenic landscapes represents tourism as other people view it, seeing something new and being unfamiliar with the setting, perceiving it as otherworldly in essence. Sontag also states, “despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment" (111). Coopers and Chalfant’s photos of graffiti offers an appealing perspective to an art form that is not necessarily distinguished as art. It is typically associated with crime, but the way that the pictures are illustrated makes the audience viewing it, recognize it as a beautiful piece. It brings an artistic awareness to how New York appeared in the 80’s and delivers a glance at the history and culture of the beauty of behind street art.
ReplyDeleteSontag's argument that "the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own"(57) and "despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment" are well supported by Ole Marius Joergensen's and Martha Cooper/Henry Chalfant's photographs(111). We may not have the opportunity to ever visit Norway and see the beauty of it, but through Joergensen’s photo’s we are able to imagine ourselves being there and experiencing nature at its finest. Through the photograph, we are able to imagine how the mist may feel and the sounds of the animals, as well as the smell of nature. May places that people may capture through photographs, others may never have the opportunity to visit, but through the photograph’s we can picture ourselves there and may almost become realistic. Cooper and Chalfant’s photo’s capture art that may viewers do not feel emotionally attached, because we do not know the story behind it. One can pass by the subway and just think “graffiti” and think that some troubled teens may have done that, because we do not sympathize with the artist who is telling a story. Much of the art that we pass by is overlooked and mot given the credit that it deserves.
ReplyDeleteSontag's argument that "the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own" (57)relates to the photographs by Ole Marius Joergensen and Martha Cooper/Henry Chalfant is this places are real and can be visited. The camera allows people to imagine they are there even though they are not. In Joergensen's photographs, it relates on how alien a far away land can feel like when someone is looking at photographs. The culture, the language, everything will give awe like if you a space traveler arriving to Mars. When I show pictures of my travels, I am amazed I was able to go and visit these places and explain the pictures to my friends like if they were there.
ReplyDeleteWith "Despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment" (111) the photographs can related to an era where the culture was captured and immortalized. Some of the graffiti is still around today in various parts of the world. The "writers" tell a story of the past and present. During that era, tensions were high with the Cold War and "Writers" expressed their art with graffiti. These photographs can say a lot without saying a word.
In Sontag's essay she argues that "the camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own" (pg.57) which relates to the photograph by Ole Marius Joergensen and Martha Cooper/ Henry Chalfant because these photographs give us a glimpse of other parts of the world some of us would have never of been able to see or visit if it wasn't through their photography. These photographs give us a mini tour of someone else's reality. Through Joergensen's images I can imagine what It might feel like to be out in the forrest and what might surround me if I was there.
ReplyDeleteCooper/Chalfant's photography show us different types of gratify painted on trains that promote emotional detachment. Sontag states, “despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment" (111). I didn't feel an attachment to these photographs because although they were beautiful and the content was beautiful there is no way of really knowing what the meaning behind the gravity really is. In other words, as beautiful as all these photographs might be we will not be able to feel an attachment unless we understand the meaning or story behind them.
The photographs by Ole Marius Joergensen and Martha Cooper/Henry Chalfant relate to Sotang’s argument that “he camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own" (57). This argument is thoroughly observed in Joergensen photographs. The main subject of his photographs is an astronaut. This depicts that sometimes we are able to find completely new, almost out of this world, meaning in everyday events and objects. Cooper/Chalfant photographs also relate to Sotang’s argument they depict how graffiti can have a completely different meaning. While you might see graffiti mostly every day in some places mostly no one pays attention to it. If people were to contemplate it they might find some different view a completely new view of what the graffiti might mean, it could tell a story, depict an event, or even tell someone’s feelings. Joergensen and Cooper/Chalfant also embrace the concept presented by Sontag that "despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment" (111). They embrace this concept by providing us a snapshot of life they show what was happening at the moment by they might have a deeper meaning. We believe that we can understand what is going on but that might not be the case. We only see the objects and persons but not necessarily feel attached to them that’s why these pictures embrace Sotang’s concepts.
ReplyDeleteThe photographs by Ole Marius Joergensen and Martha Cooper/Henry Chalfant relate to Sotang’s argument that “he camera makes everyone a tourist in other people's reality, and eventually in one's own" (57). This argument is thoroughly observed in Joergensen photographs. The main subject of his photographs is an astronaut. This depicts that sometimes we are able to find completely new, almost out of this world, meaning in everyday events and objects. Cooper/Chalfant photographs also relate to Sotang’s argument they depict how graffiti can have a completely different meaning. While you might see graffiti mostly every day in some places mostly no one pays attention to it. If people were to contemplate it they might find some different view a completely new view of what the graffiti might mean, it could tell a story, depict an event, or even tell someone’s feelings. Joergensen and Cooper/Chalfant also embrace the concept presented by Sontag that "despite the illusion of giving understanding, what seeing through photographs really invites is an acquisitive relation to the world that nourishes aesthetic awareness and promotes emotional detachment" (111). They embrace this concept by providing us a snapshot of life they show what was happening at the moment by they might have a deeper meaning. We believe that we can understand what is going on but that might not be the case. We only see the objects and persons but not necessarily feel attached to them that’s why these pictures embrace Sotang’s concepts.
ReplyDelete