Perhaps it’s just me, but I found chapter five and its discussion on technology versus how it changes society incredibly interesting. While one side of the argument is that society is what demands the changes in society, another side is that it is the technology itself with changes society.
I think that to some extent, both work simultaneously. For example, take something like the roomba (for lake of a better example coming to mind). No one needs a roomba per se. Technology is increasing because they are looking for ways to make life easier. But society is also getting lazier because of the convenience that technology gives us. It becomes a situation then of what came first, the chicken or the egg?
Another example that we could discuss is the idea about pictures and photography. It used to be a social norm within society to have portraits done. If you were high in society, you would spend hours sitting as an artist sketched your outline and painted a picture. Now, it has become more common place to be instantly gratified and have a family portrait taken at Glamour Shots in the mall. For those that still want an actual portrait to hang over their mantle, the artist will still paint a picture, but they will use the photograph as a base model instead of the actual model themselves.
After awhile though, even photographs became obsolete and cinema became the new rage. Portraits took much too long, photography was more instant, but film could show a progression of images.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Visual Communications Proposal
Proposal: I intend to look at video game and how they have changed and adapted as there have been advancements in technology, with a specific look at the Final Fantasy series.
What are you trying to prove?
As technology has changed, so has the way that people entertain themselves. In particular, video games have seen a drastic overhaul in form and function as time has passed. Beginning from 1969 when William Rusch filed a patent application for the “Television Gaming Apparatus” (later to be known as the Magnavox Odyssey) to today’s Xbox360, PlayStation3 and Wii, gaming itself has changed just as much as the games themselves.
What are you trying to prove?
As technology has changed, so has the way that people entertain themselves. In particular, video games have seen a drastic overhaul in form and function as time has passed. Beginning from 1969 when William Rusch filed a patent application for the “Television Gaming Apparatus” (later to be known as the Magnavox Odyssey) to today’s Xbox360, PlayStation3 and Wii, gaming itself has changed just as much as the games themselves.
Why are video games so important?
Video games are important, at least in the idea of visual communications, because they demonstrate the growing use of technology in digital media. As advances in technology are made, graphics and other picture qualities must increase as well in order to keep the populace interested. In the past few years alone, video games have changed from 8bit color schemes CG movements. Classic games such as pong were shown in black and white and consisted simply of trying to keep a ball positioned between two paddles. Today’s games include much more intricate maneuvers such as intricate battle sequences, puzzles and strategic plotting. Before players were content with Pac man in arcade form at their favorite diner or movie theatre, but games and systems have now become more home compatible – they are slimmer and generally more challenging in their character.
Final Fantasy I battle sequence
Final Fantasy VII battle sequence
Final Fantasy XIII battle sequence
What example do you plan to use to illustrate your point?
Few games have been around as long as long as the Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー ) franchise. Hironobu Sakaguchi created the first installment of the series in 1989, nearly a decade after Pac man became popular. Sakaguchi joked that since Square (now known as Square Enix) was about to hit bankruptcy, his final game would be a fantasy, hence the title of the game. When the game was met with wide success in both Japan and North America, Square continued to produce Final Fantasy games, a trend that persists today. Since 1989, there have been 13 Final Fantasy games developed, the last of which is due to be released in the United States 2010. The Final Fantasy games have gone from the Nintendo console to PlayStation, PlayStation2, Computer, and PlayStation3. To become more versatile and appeal to a larger audience, Final Fantasy XIII is set to be released on both the PS3 as well as the Xbox360.
How have video games affected the digital media industry?
Video gamers have become so obsessed with their respective game titles, they many video games have been transformed into other media. Many games have been transformed into movies. Such popular titles include things such as Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Tekken and Final Fantasy. Mortal Kombat has sparked not only a movie in 1995, but also a TV series and other merchandise. There is even rumor that there is a remake of the movie set to release in 2010. The Final Fantasy line has sparked not one, but two movies: Final Fantasy Advent Children and Final Fantasy – The Spirits Within. While Advent Children is based more directly on what happens post the conclusion of the famous Final Fantasy VII, The Spirits Within was a modern marvel when it was released. According to a review on Entertainment Weekly by Lisa Schwarzbaum, “Final Fantasy is also a mesmerizing technical achievement, and a breakthrough in the synergy…between digital gaming and movie-going. Untethered from the conventions of human-emotion-based storytelling, these computer-created characters represent a cinematic art of the future taking its first baby steps today.” Just to show how quickly digital media changes, over the four years of production time used on The Spirits Within, by the time the final shots were rendered, creators and animators had to return to some of the earlier shots – they needed to be redone because they didn’t match the later images. The software used to create the images had become more advanced and thus more detail was possible.
What example do you plan to use to illustrate your point?
Few games have been around as long as long as the Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー ) franchise. Hironobu Sakaguchi created the first installment of the series in 1989, nearly a decade after Pac man became popular. Sakaguchi joked that since Square (now known as Square Enix) was about to hit bankruptcy, his final game would be a fantasy, hence the title of the game. When the game was met with wide success in both Japan and North America, Square continued to produce Final Fantasy games, a trend that persists today. Since 1989, there have been 13 Final Fantasy games developed, the last of which is due to be released in the United States 2010. The Final Fantasy games have gone from the Nintendo console to PlayStation, PlayStation2, Computer, and PlayStation3. To become more versatile and appeal to a larger audience, Final Fantasy XIII is set to be released on both the PS3 as well as the Xbox360.
How have video games affected the digital media industry?
Video gamers have become so obsessed with their respective game titles, they many video games have been transformed into other media. Many games have been transformed into movies. Such popular titles include things such as Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Tekken and Final Fantasy. Mortal Kombat has sparked not only a movie in 1995, but also a TV series and other merchandise. There is even rumor that there is a remake of the movie set to release in 2010. The Final Fantasy line has sparked not one, but two movies: Final Fantasy Advent Children and Final Fantasy – The Spirits Within. While Advent Children is based more directly on what happens post the conclusion of the famous Final Fantasy VII, The Spirits Within was a modern marvel when it was released. According to a review on Entertainment Weekly by Lisa Schwarzbaum, “Final Fantasy is also a mesmerizing technical achievement, and a breakthrough in the synergy…between digital gaming and movie-going. Untethered from the conventions of human-emotion-based storytelling, these computer-created characters represent a cinematic art of the future taking its first baby steps today.” Just to show how quickly digital media changes, over the four years of production time used on The Spirits Within, by the time the final shots were rendered, creators and animators had to return to some of the earlier shots – they needed to be redone because they didn’t match the later images. The software used to create the images had become more advanced and thus more detail was possible.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Chapter Four: Realism and Perspective
Chapter four speaks a lot about the idea of “realistic” and what that concept actually means. Most people think that realistic constitutes as something that you would find in real life, something that is unaltered. Like a photograph. But when you think about it, how often are photographs altered? With the advances in modern technology, it is incredibly easy to doctor a photo and make it look as if it were real. Even more so, pictures that could be taken to look like a snapshot in time could actually have been staged. If things are staged, do they lose their reality, or are they just trying to portray the reality in which the creator intended the viewer to see.
Another interesting fact is the idea about doctoring a photo in the sense to make things look differently. I don’t mean this in the sense of photoshop, where you change the actual elements pictured in the photo, but things such as black and white, cyan and sepia. Black and white film, as well as sepia tones, were used in the past because of the absence of color technology as well as to preserve the photo. Now, with the click of a button we can easily modify a photo to be taken digitally with these specific tones. Changing a photo to black and white can easily give a picture a different feel than what was originally intended.
Another interesting fact is the idea about doctoring a photo in the sense to make things look differently. I don’t mean this in the sense of photoshop, where you change the actual elements pictured in the photo, but things such as black and white, cyan and sepia. Black and white film, as well as sepia tones, were used in the past because of the absence of color technology as well as to preserve the photo. Now, with the click of a button we can easily modify a photo to be taken digitally with these specific tones. Changing a photo to black and white can easily give a picture a different feel than what was originally intended.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Chapter Three: Modernity
Images are also factors in the power relations between human subjects and individuals/institutions.
What is important to remember is also the way in which we view images. Rarely do view an image while we are in total seclusion and isolation. Sometimes the room may be cold or the hustle and bustle of other tourists distracting. The concept of spectatorship allows us to talk about the full scope of viewing.
Modernity is a term that scholars use to refer to the historical, cultural, political and economic conditions related to the Enlightenment: the rise of the industrial society and scientific rationalism; and to the idea of controlling nature through technology, science and nationalism.
The concepts of gaze and spectatorship remain important cornerstones of visual studies because they provide a set of terms and methods through which to consider some aspects of looking practices that the concepts of the viewer does not really allow us to consider in depth. These are:
1) the roles of the unconscious and desire in viewing practices
2) the role of looking in the formation of the human subject as such; and
3) the way that looking is always a relational activity and not simply a mental activity engaged in by someone who forms internal mental representations that stand for a passive image object ‘out there.’
One of my favorite sections of the entire chapter was definitely the idea of power and discourse. As I mentioned back in chapter one, many of the theories reminded me of the ideas of Foucault and Panopticism. Luckily for me this topic came up again later.
Panopticism is the idea that the onlooker can assert power on the subjects they are looking/gazing upon without having to directly interact. There is a power struggle and imbalance this way between the commanding figure (viewer) and lesser figure (viewee).
The concept of Panopticism can often be best described in the idea of a prison. In the middle the high tower looks down upon the cells. There is a bright spotlight that shines towards the inmates cells as well. The cells themselves are of a concave nature, making it difficult to see and interact with the cell next to you. The inmates then are under constant surveillance. Or so they think, anyway. In reality, the inmates are lead to believe that because the panopticon (the tower in the center of the room) is constantly present, they are constantly under watch. In reality, however, the inmates have no idea when they are actually being watched, since they cannot see or interact with others.
This gives the power to the viewer.
Topics for Discussion:
1. What is the best way, in your mind, to view art and other images? If the setting plays a difference in the way viewers see images, should the setting be tailored to the type of art viewed, or should everything be viewed in isolation?
2. What other modern day examples of Foucault’s theory of Panopticism can you think of? How does this assert power between the viewer and viewee and how could the roles be changed or reversed?
What is important to remember is also the way in which we view images. Rarely do view an image while we are in total seclusion and isolation. Sometimes the room may be cold or the hustle and bustle of other tourists distracting. The concept of spectatorship allows us to talk about the full scope of viewing.
Modernity is a term that scholars use to refer to the historical, cultural, political and economic conditions related to the Enlightenment: the rise of the industrial society and scientific rationalism; and to the idea of controlling nature through technology, science and nationalism.
The concepts of gaze and spectatorship remain important cornerstones of visual studies because they provide a set of terms and methods through which to consider some aspects of looking practices that the concepts of the viewer does not really allow us to consider in depth. These are:
1) the roles of the unconscious and desire in viewing practices
2) the role of looking in the formation of the human subject as such; and
3) the way that looking is always a relational activity and not simply a mental activity engaged in by someone who forms internal mental representations that stand for a passive image object ‘out there.’
One of my favorite sections of the entire chapter was definitely the idea of power and discourse. As I mentioned back in chapter one, many of the theories reminded me of the ideas of Foucault and Panopticism. Luckily for me this topic came up again later.
Panopticism is the idea that the onlooker can assert power on the subjects they are looking/gazing upon without having to directly interact. There is a power struggle and imbalance this way between the commanding figure (viewer) and lesser figure (viewee).
The concept of Panopticism can often be best described in the idea of a prison. In the middle the high tower looks down upon the cells. There is a bright spotlight that shines towards the inmates cells as well. The cells themselves are of a concave nature, making it difficult to see and interact with the cell next to you. The inmates then are under constant surveillance. Or so they think, anyway. In reality, the inmates are lead to believe that because the panopticon (the tower in the center of the room) is constantly present, they are constantly under watch. In reality, however, the inmates have no idea when they are actually being watched, since they cannot see or interact with others.
This gives the power to the viewer.
Topics for Discussion:
1. What is the best way, in your mind, to view art and other images? If the setting plays a difference in the way viewers see images, should the setting be tailored to the type of art viewed, or should everything be viewed in isolation?
2. What other modern day examples of Foucault’s theory of Panopticism can you think of? How does this assert power between the viewer and viewee and how could the roles be changed or reversed?
Monday, January 26, 2009
The Birth of an Avatar
I've forgotten how to get an image of my avatar (as well as how to buy free things like hair) but I thought I would blog a bit about the creation of my avatar in second life.
My avatar's name is Eve Denver. Fairly generic I thought, with a little bit of flair (I've always loved the name Eve). I chose the original style of girl next door, which I quickly modified. Instead of brown haired with a pony tail, she now has long blond hair that's unbound (at least for now). She's fair skinned, like me, with blueish eyes, again like me. I tried to make her as close to my own image as possible, but considering I'm not as well versed in second life as I would like to be, that's still up to be debated. In fact, in order to make Eve's hair color correct, I kept hitting the randomize button until I got something somewhat close and then started tweaking with the slider bars. Seemed to work fairly well.
My avatar's name is Eve Denver. Fairly generic I thought, with a little bit of flair (I've always loved the name Eve). I chose the original style of girl next door, which I quickly modified. Instead of brown haired with a pony tail, she now has long blond hair that's unbound (at least for now). She's fair skinned, like me, with blueish eyes, again like me. I tried to make her as close to my own image as possible, but considering I'm not as well versed in second life as I would like to be, that's still up to be debated. In fact, in order to make Eve's hair color correct, I kept hitting the randomize button until I got something somewhat close and then started tweaking with the slider bars. Seemed to work fairly well.
After a bit of fiddling, I tweaked her a bit:
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Chapter Two: Viewers Make Meaning
Images generate meanings, but the meanings to not necessarily like in the work itself. The meaning instead are produced through complex negotiations that make up the social process and practices through with we interpret meanings. In laymen’s terms, we bring our own interpretation to the work.
Three elements besides the image itself and its producer:
1) the codes and conventions that structure the image and that cannot be separated from the content of the image
2) the viewers and how they interpret or experience the image
3) the context in which the image is being viewed
There is a difference between viewer and audience. A viewer is the one that looks. An audience is the collection of lookers. To interpolate something would be when an image “calls out to” a viewer or catches their attention. For the viewer to be able to interpolate something though, the viewer must consider themselves as part of the society in which the image is meaningful. An Olay commercial will not be interpolated the same for men as they are for women because the men are not in the same societal group as women.
Most images have a meaning that the producers prefer you to see. For example, advertisers have different reasons for images than say, artist, graphic designers and filmmakers. We usually have no idea what the exact meaning is of the producers though, since each person brings to the table their own thoughts.
What determines the value of a work? One key factor is the collecting by art institutions like museums and other art collectors.
Someone’s “taste” in images if often an extension of a culture’s ideology. Living as we do in our own culture, it is easier for us to recognize the meanings of another culture’s ideology than it is our own, because we are so engrained in our own culture that we hardly consider them to be anything more than common place and common sense. Marx once theorized that since we are so enwrapped in our culture, that we are often encouraged to believe in the culture and give into it, even if we are oppressed.
Louis Althusser theorized that without ideology we would have no means of thinking about or experiencing that thing in which we call reality.
All images are encoded with meanings in their creation and production that the viewer later decode. According the Stuart Hall, there are 3 positions that viewers can take when decoding images:
1) Dominant-hegemonic reading. They can identify with the hegemonic position and receive the dominant message of an image or text (TV show) in an unquestioning manner
2) Negotiated reading. They can negotiate an interpretation from the image and its dominat meanings
3) Oppositional reading. Finally they can take an oppositional position, either by completely disagreeing with the ideological position embodied in an image or rejecting it altogether.
Thoughts for Discussion
1. How, within our class, do we vary in audience versus viewer? We are all here to learn the same material, and yet based on the reading, how does interpreting the material as a viewer change our meaning of the course?
2. Louis Althusser said that without ideology we wouldn’t be able to understand reality. How would this concept play out if we started viewing things from a different angle? Would this disrupt our reality or simply alter it?
Three elements besides the image itself and its producer:
1) the codes and conventions that structure the image and that cannot be separated from the content of the image
2) the viewers and how they interpret or experience the image
3) the context in which the image is being viewed
There is a difference between viewer and audience. A viewer is the one that looks. An audience is the collection of lookers. To interpolate something would be when an image “calls out to” a viewer or catches their attention. For the viewer to be able to interpolate something though, the viewer must consider themselves as part of the society in which the image is meaningful. An Olay commercial will not be interpolated the same for men as they are for women because the men are not in the same societal group as women.
Most images have a meaning that the producers prefer you to see. For example, advertisers have different reasons for images than say, artist, graphic designers and filmmakers. We usually have no idea what the exact meaning is of the producers though, since each person brings to the table their own thoughts.
What determines the value of a work? One key factor is the collecting by art institutions like museums and other art collectors.
Someone’s “taste” in images if often an extension of a culture’s ideology. Living as we do in our own culture, it is easier for us to recognize the meanings of another culture’s ideology than it is our own, because we are so engrained in our own culture that we hardly consider them to be anything more than common place and common sense. Marx once theorized that since we are so enwrapped in our culture, that we are often encouraged to believe in the culture and give into it, even if we are oppressed.
Louis Althusser theorized that without ideology we would have no means of thinking about or experiencing that thing in which we call reality.
All images are encoded with meanings in their creation and production that the viewer later decode. According the Stuart Hall, there are 3 positions that viewers can take when decoding images:
1) Dominant-hegemonic reading. They can identify with the hegemonic position and receive the dominant message of an image or text (TV show) in an unquestioning manner
2) Negotiated reading. They can negotiate an interpretation from the image and its dominat meanings
3) Oppositional reading. Finally they can take an oppositional position, either by completely disagreeing with the ideological position embodied in an image or rejecting it altogether.
Thoughts for Discussion
1. How, within our class, do we vary in audience versus viewer? We are all here to learn the same material, and yet based on the reading, how does interpreting the material as a viewer change our meaning of the course?
2. Louis Althusser said that without ideology we wouldn’t be able to understand reality. How would this concept play out if we started viewing things from a different angle? Would this disrupt our reality or simply alter it?
3. Based on Stuart Hall’s idea of 3 ways a viewer can decode images, what are some common examples we find everyday that can illustrate his points? Why are these illustrations such a hot topic for discussion?
4. Political cartoons are often based upon the viewers ideologies. How much of these ideologies are expressed through the work itself and how much of the meaning is interpreted by the viewer?
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Chapter One: Images, Power and Politics
One of the main themes that caught my eye was the mention and idea that, like other practices, “looking involves relationships of power.” This idea is much like that of Foucault and Panopticism
According to The Practices of Looking, the role of images in providing views of violence, and of voyeurism and fascination with violence, is countered by a history of using images to expose the devastating aspects of violence. The poignant example was that of Emmett Till, a black boy that was murdered for whistling at a white woman. Till’s mother, knowing the effect it out have on the public, had an open casket for her son.
Representation
Representation refers to the use of language and images to create meaning about the world around us. I found it interesting that representation can be interpreted as either what the world "really is" (what is mirrored back to us) or what we really just precieve things as being. I agree with the idea that we percieve things to be as they are becuase of the things that we carry along with us -- our mental baggage.
One of the most interesting parts of the discussion was the idea of "this is not a pipe." Surrealist artist Rene Magritte created a picture of a pipe with the phrase "this is not a pipe" on the bottom. Though this is taken as a joke, it could also be pointing to the relationship between words and physical things. Of course the painting is not an actual pipe -- you cannot pick up the pipe and smoke it. That being said, if someone where to say "this is a pipe" or "this is a picture of a pipe" the general understanding would be the same.
The Myth of Photographic Truth
One of the most interesting points of the chapter was the discussion of the truth of photography. Many people often associate photography with being a snapshop of the truth. Though things can easily be posed and manipulated, via the photographer, photoshop or other digital technologies, there is a power in photography that makes the viewer believe that what they are viewing has to be the real thing.
Photographs can be used as both documents of how something is at a given time (like the snapshot at Tinamen Square) or they can be of more a symbolic stature.
According to The Practices of Looking, the role of images in providing views of violence, and of voyeurism and fascination with violence, is countered by a history of using images to expose the devastating aspects of violence. The poignant example was that of Emmett Till, a black boy that was murdered for whistling at a white woman. Till’s mother, knowing the effect it out have on the public, had an open casket for her son.
Representation
Representation refers to the use of language and images to create meaning about the world around us. I found it interesting that representation can be interpreted as either what the world "really is" (what is mirrored back to us) or what we really just precieve things as being. I agree with the idea that we percieve things to be as they are becuase of the things that we carry along with us -- our mental baggage.
One of the most interesting parts of the discussion was the idea of "this is not a pipe." Surrealist artist Rene Magritte created a picture of a pipe with the phrase "this is not a pipe" on the bottom. Though this is taken as a joke, it could also be pointing to the relationship between words and physical things. Of course the painting is not an actual pipe -- you cannot pick up the pipe and smoke it. That being said, if someone where to say "this is a pipe" or "this is a picture of a pipe" the general understanding would be the same.
The Myth of Photographic Truth
One of the most interesting points of the chapter was the discussion of the truth of photography. Many people often associate photography with being a snapshop of the truth. Though things can easily be posed and manipulated, via the photographer, photoshop or other digital technologies, there is a power in photography that makes the viewer believe that what they are viewing has to be the real thing.
Photographs can be used as both documents of how something is at a given time (like the snapshot at Tinamen Square) or they can be of more a symbolic stature.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Atom Feed (xml)