lovie.igho
PLEASE READ THE BOLD SENTENCE AND ANSWER IN DEPTH PLEASE…
PLEASE READ THE BOLD SENTENCE AND ANSWER IN DEPTH
PLEASE RESPOND TO QUINONES’ DISCUSSION POST
1) This week’s most interesting image was Lucas Samaras, Photo-Transformation, 1970s. Samaras was a well-known sculptor, painter, and performance artist when he began experimenting with photography in 1969. Samaras began working with a Polaroid camera in the 1970s, “when an employee of the Polaroid Corporation commissioned him to experiment with the new SX-70 camera for an exhibition at the Light Gallery in New York.” When Samaras would capture photos using the Polaroid camera, he would watch the image form, during that time Samaras determined that the film’s image-receiving layer remained highly malleable for several minutes after it is ejected from the camera. Taking advantage of this feature, he manipulated this layer in a variety of ways to transform his images using his hand or a stylus to gouge, smear, and stipple the wet dye emulsions of the instant prints, blurring photography, drawing, and painting all while they were developing. Working with a Polaroid camera, he created hundreds of lush, idiosyncratic images of his favorite subject: himself.
I found Lucas Samaras, Photo-Transformation, 1970s intriguing because the image is open to a wide range of interpretations. Personally, I interpreted this image as Samaras feeling mentally trapped, masking his true identity. Yet, the pain he has been enduring internally is found to be hindering him physically, pouring out into his external world far beyond his control. While I recognize that my interpretation may be a reach and not what Samaras conveys, the thought of hearing about different interpretations on this piece is intriguing. So, my question to you all would be, what is your interpretation of Lucas Samaras, Photo-Transformation, 1970s?
PLEASE RESPOND TO PINTO’S DISCUSSION POST
2) For this week I looked at slide 3.3 on slides 7 and 8 are really impressive shots to look at because they are falling objects in motion if we take a look at slide 7 we see a chair tilted on its side about to fall and on the bottom we see a second image of the bucket being flung off the chair with the subjects being well lit and having the camera the right exposure. The reason why this image is so fascinating is because of the amount of shots it took to get this picture to capture an object clear in motion is a task that is really difficult even today it is still somewhat of a challenge to capture a fast moving object in a clear frame.
The same can be said about the image on slide 8 which shows us two images of balls falling we can even see there shadows on the ground under them this is a much harder image to capture because of how fast the balls were dropped from the roof and to capture it in a clear image with well defined shadows is really amazing to look at given the time when this was taken because there were no action modes on these cameras its a combination of pure luck and talent to get a image like this with a camera from the 1970s.
The other images I found interesting to look t where on 3.4 slides 42 and 43 on slide 42 we see a 99 cent store in 1999 and the image has so many bright colors and the way that it is centered captures the entire store perfectly if we take a look at the next slide 43 it is a amazon factory with again a lot of colors but in a much more depressing setting its all packages in a warehouse but shows how stores or factories evolve over time.
My question to my classmates is what makes an image art and what factors need to go into the photograph that make it a work of art or is a photograph just simply art to explain your reasoning. The reason why I am asking this question is because we have been learning about the debate between art and photography and this is an open ended question.
