Last Post Ever!

In Ectoplasm, Geoffrey Bathen says, “Photography is faced with two apparent crises, one technological (the introduction of computerized images) and one epistemological (having to do with broader changes in ethics, knowledge, and culture)” (351). He is referring to the advent of digital technologies and its subsequent influence on the photographic medium. The technological crises is rather straightforward—people began to question whether an image produced or manipulated on a computer can be considered photographic—so I am choosing to focus my discussion on the epistemological crises brought about by advancements in digital medias. Bathen makes the argument that although all forms of photography involve intervention from the artist and some manipulation, “…digitization abandons even the rhetoric of truth that has been such an important part of photography’s cultural success” (353). Digital images are received with intense skepticism. There is no doubt that the newness of the art form contributes to this skepticism. However, Bathen also makes the argument that digitization loses credibility because it strips an image of its indexicality. There can be no guarantee that the digital image existed in a real time and space. Photography has had huge success in claiming objectivity because it is an index. No matter how much manipulation went into the taking or development of the picture, the viewer feels assured that the photograph documents a truth. In How To Do Things with Pictures, William Mitchell says that “the fact that what is represented on paper undeniably existed, if only for a moment, is the ultimate source of the medium’s extraordinary powers of persuasion” (320). Bathen theorizes that the perceived manipulability of digital photography will upset photography’s association with objectivity. For the first time, the issue of a “fake,” a non-authentic, photograph is discussed. Bathen describes the following epistemological challenge: “The prospect is that, unable to spot the ‘fake’ from the ‘real,’ viewers will increasingly discard their faith in the photograph’s ability to deliver objective truth” (351). I was caught off guard by this part of the essay. What exactly is the real photograph? And what separates the real from the fake? We came to the conclusion after reading Benjamin’s article that if all photographs are copies of a negative, than the reproduced photo is no less real than the original copy (yes, this is an oxymoron)? In this sense, there is no fake photograph. Bathen’s proposes that digital technologies pose the threat of fake photographs, ones in which the original idea of a photo is manipulated. The digital image is having to fight to be seen as real and authentic. Like other artists that we have read before, Bathen argues that photography-as-we-know-it is inevitably going to change as a result of digitalization. He even goes so far as to say that old style photography will die. But he is not sad or pessimistic. Instead, he says “Photography’s passing must necessarily entail the inscription of another way of seeing—and of being” (357). I appreciate Bathen’s careful attention to avoid technological determinism. He calls digital media the “manifestations of our culture’s latest worldview.” Digitization is the result of an increasing acceptance of a cyborg, part nature part machine, way of life. The author makes the brilliant point that “digitization, cosmetic surgery, cloning, genetic engineering…” share a common trend. All are revealing our “desire to attempt immorality” (355) by accepting the alteration, manipulation, and enhancement of nature by technology.

Ectoplasm: Photography in the Digital Age

Batchen’s essay deals with the transformation of photography in the digital age. Ironically, despite being titled “Ectoplasm: Photography in the Digital Age,” the word ectoplasm is neither used nor defined in the essay. To Batchen, photography itself has always been tied with the concept of preservation and death. His description of process of primitive portraits requiring the subject to play dead was reminiscent of the psychoanalytical view of photography as product of the “mummy complex.” Moreover, I find these notions of preservation and death seems to highlight what Batchen cites as one of the primary concerns with digital photography –that photographs may no longer be viewed as indexical evidence for one’s presence or being. However, while others debate the effect of digitization on “image integrity,” Batchen argues that, from its inception, photography has never been free of manipulation. He cites that examples manipulated magazine covers and contends that the mere act of adjusting the lighting and exposure to take a photograph challenges the photographic film’s indexical fidelity. It seems to me then that the efforts of artists ranging from Cindy Sherman to Lorna Simpson serve a similar function as digital photography by questioning our presumptions of photographs and truth. Despite being heralded as an objective medium free from human involvement (pencil of nature) and thus accurate account of reality, photographs have been shown by artists and now the photographic medium itself to be simply an unreliable method of preservation. In his essay, Batchen actively tries to undermine this notion of photography as a accurate reflection of truth. He describes photography as more something that is more akin to a network of indexes a collection of ghosts. While looking up “ectoplasm” on the internet, I found it interesting that digital photographs often listed as evidence of its existence along with text that offer scientific explanations to the optical effect. It then seems that photographs (especially digital photographs) are in many ways analogous to ectoplasm united by their existence as things that are both physical and the supernatural and their ability to incite controversy.

Ectoplasm

So this essay was really interesting to me because it followed my train of thought of how to approach photography. Relating photography to death, space and time is somewhat natural when thinking about photographs of past relatives or historical figures. "In stopping or turning back time, photography appeared to be once again playing with life and death." It plays with life and death because it shows you something that is gone, and can never be captured in the same way again. "photography has already enabled us to hand down to future ages a picture of the sunshine of yesterday." Batchen talks about two ways that photography will no longer portray objective truth: the first is through computers digitizing images so that they no longer can be trusted to portray reality, and the second is that the viewer cannot differentiate the original from copies or simulations. Benjamin brought up this topic of mechanical reproduction and how the aura will be lost due to photography, however, now not only is the aura lost, but so is the foundation on which photography was based: the portrayal of reality and truth of the surroundings.

Batchen mentions how portraits were reversed in concept because in order for the subject to be able to look alive, they would first have to constrain themselves like they were dead. Without this temporary embalming to take the photograph, the subjects actually appeared dead, like corpses. "Every photograph is therefore a chilling reminder of human mortality." Every photography reminds us that those in it will die or already have, which leads the viewer to ponder their own end.

"computer visualization, on the other hand, allows photographic-style images to be made in which there is potentially no direct referent to an outside world." At first, this makes you think that the entire basis of photography is shattered, but this is just another way to show the evolution of photography and how the artworld is currently being shaped. Soon there will be a new diagram to draw that has "not digital and not photography" written on one of the sides of the diamond.

Ectoplasm: Photography in the Digital Age

I really enjoyed Geoffrey Batchens' essay, I thought it was the perfect essay to conclude our discussion on photography with.  I found myself thinking about digital photography differently after I read Batchens' essay.  Because I have grown up in a digital age I take it for granted that pictures are probably altered in some way.  It seems everywhere images are photoshopped or airbrushed: magazine covers, images of nature, even personal photos can be altered to eliminate red-eye.  But I had always thought that anything being presented as photographic art would not be digitally altered, unless it was intentional.  Reading Batchens' essay made me realize the impact that digital enhancement had on photography, making people loose faith in what had previously been thought of as a medium that captured truth.

I enjoyed the way that Batchens' dealt with this seeming loss of faith.  He writes that digital photography allows human creativity to flourish because it provides a hands-on approach in all the different steps.  I thought this was a very interesting way of dealing with what many people consider a detachment from artistic principles.  Although I am not wholly convinced of his argument because I feel like digital photography, to a large extent, cheapens photographs, allowing anyone access to the photos.  Overall I appreciated Batchens' treatment of the difficult anomaly that digital photography presents to the art world.  

Ectoplasm: Photography in the Digital Age

I found this essay by Geoffrey Batchen to be one of the most interesting essays that we have read all semester. I believe it to be the most interesting because it deals with the recent changes and advancements in photography which made it highly relatable. Today there is much speculation over the concept of traditional photography. Is it dead? Alive? Where is it going and what will be seen of photography in the future?

Batchen speaks of the “widespread introduction of computer driven imaging processes that allows “fake” photos to be passed off as real ones.” This statement is very relatable to what is taking place with photography today as seen with magazines, tabloids, newsstands and photos released on the internet. Digitally altering photographs cause the images to lose their power as reliable sources of information and will quickly lead to just about everything being turned to “artificial nature.”

Digital imaging has become an overly fictional process which relies solely on technology and has taken over the traditional objection and art of photo taking. This statement only leads to the idea that if it is an “overly” fictional process already, there will be new and improved ways of altering photos in the future. This thought is a little frightening only because there are numerous possibilities of how photography can be altered and it could be possible that the natural art is destroyed altogether. Given the entire context of this situation, it seems as if only time will tell what is in store for the future of photography.

Ectoplasm

In this essay, there were many really intriguing statements about photography that we haven't ever discussed before. One in particular I'd like to talk about: "Whatever its nominal subject, photography was a visual inscription of the passing of time and therefore also an intimation of every viewer's own inevitable passing" (352 of R). We see photographs from decades ago that are records of time passed and people who have passed and it is true: they reveal the transitivity of our own lives and everything in our lives. It reminds me of the scene in Dead Poet's Society where Robin Williams is telling his class to seize the day. He says this as they look at old black and white pictures of boys who went to the school who knows how many years ago. That scene has always stuck with me and I think it's because of how powerful looking at old photographs or even recent photographs can be. Pictures from our childhoods reveal how much we've grown and how fast the time goes. Even looking at pictures from my parent's childhoods brings a sadness of how gone those days are and how fast my days are going to go. Photography can be a morbid subject, revealing some truths we'd rather not accept. Some might say thats one of the best things about it.

I also thought some statements about digital photography were interesting: "...digital images are actually closer in spirit to the creative processes of art than they are to the truth values of documentary" (353) The reason the author says this, I think, is because of all work that goes into "touching up" or refinishing a digital work, or maybe even manipulating it, whether its the color, format, or contrast. I would tend to disagree, although I do agree that it takes a skilled person to make a great digital picture. I think that film photography needs a lot of patience and work that is different but still "using the digits" and creates photographs that are just as impressive as some digital pictures. I am sad that film is becoming obselete and the dark room is becoming something of the past.

Ectoplasm: Photography in the Digital Age

I really enjoyed Geoffrey Batchens essay on the photography in the digital age. I found it remarkable to read that “in 1989 photography was dead,” which I find really hard to understand but if though about it makes complete sense. Individuals in the past relied on photography to display the truth and used to documents. And since the development of the computer, image processing has taken of the medium and people have lost faith in the truthfulness of photography. Another important concept that I found interesting and easier to understand was that it was “no longer possible to tell any original from its simulations.” Which goes back to the Benjamin’s constant argument of the loss of the aura in reproductions, there are so many multiples in the world that are so accessible it loses its value. One example was the “After Sherrie Levine” website that was discovered, the website was a reproduction of Levine’s reproduction of Evan’s work. At the website there could have been infinite amount of reproductions made with certificate of proof also.
As the essay continues I found the idea of photography being a vision of life and death very compelling. Initially, I though photography as to a medium to capture life but I was wrong, in the beginning with the start of daguerreotypes being associated with “black magic”. It continues with the explanation of the slowness of exposure times and the creation of corpse like images. However, to contradict with the idea of photography being related to the idea of death Benjamin again inputs the idea of the aura and its death that is often represented in photography is a result of “authentic social relations” that “could be brought back to life”. Because the sacrifice of the spiritual authenticity within a photography it allows relations to develop, and on a deeper level, the development of capitalism.

The Digital

The concept of digital photography, to me, is both beneficial and detrimental to the medium of photography. It gives the photographer the ability to combine two images or ideas and “present a possible world rather than an actual one” (325). However, it also has the ability to trick the viewer into believing an untruth and can take away from the pureness associated with photography. Digital photography can make the viewer question whether what appears in the image is actually real. Both essays address the concept of manipulating image without the viewer being aware. Mitchell states, “[digital photography] provides an opportunity for the photographic fakers to take advantage of us” (320). Batchen writes, “newspapers and magazines have…manipulated their images in one way or another” (353-4). The idea of a digitally altered image being presented as a pure photograph is disconcerting. I feel that if the observer understood the original had been tampered with, there would be no conflict surrounding this new technological development. However, producing these images without notifying the viewer is somewhat of a lie. Overall, I do not like the fact that photographs are no longer seen with a sense of purity. If an image has an astounding appearance the initial reaction is no longer awe, but the repetitive question of “was that photo-shopped?”
Batchen’s essay ended with the statement, “Photography will cease to be a dominant element of modern life only when the desire to photograph…is refigured as another social and cultural reformation” (357). I agree with this claim, for I do not believe digitalization will cause the death of photography. I think it will just alter its path a bit; changes have been seen throughout the history of photography and the medium itself has evolved with these variations. Some might not be particularly enthralled with the introduction of this new process, but, no matter what, there always seems to be some disgruntled people when a new technological development is introduced. Photography is a way of life for some and it is not going to disappear any time soon.

How to Do Things with Pictures

The article How to Do Things with Pictures presents an interesting peculiarity of photographs resulting from their perceived reliability as a means of objective representation. The view of the role of the photograph in this article is as a tool of communication that doesn't stand alone, but is akin to a part of speech used in a broader narrative. Emphasis is placed on the context of the image as a signifier as to the message that is being conveyed. For example, in a world where natural forms are repetitive and ubiquitous, the caption of image is greatly influential as a definition of what is being seen in particular. Furthermore, the type of publication in which an image is found can have effects for the viewer, ranging from credibility if found in a newspaper, but can arouse skepticism if found in a tabloid magazine or propaganda material. This view of the photograph is consistent with Roland Barthes' structuralist interpretation of authorship and viewership, where the literary importance of a work is dependent on its relation to the viewer's historical and existential personal experience.

The article also deals extensively with the subject of falsehood within photography. One of the stipulations of photography's dependence on context to be understood is that a photograph with false context can be misleading by means of portraying something different than what is described, though the photograph may be unaltered in any way. Conversely, photographs that have been altered are also misleading if they are placed in a context that implies factual accuracy, such as a news program. Political propaganda most frequently operates in this way for purposes of ideological expediency or orthodoxy, and the author necessarily intends to deceive since he has knowledge of it's falsehood. On the other hand, altered photographs placed in a context where they are known to be false (such as being accompanied by a disclaimer) serve as works of fiction instead of forgery, and become useful for their allegorical or thematic qualities outside of the bounds of reportage.

How to do things with Pictures

This reading was cool because it demonstrated the possibilities that photography possesses. I was amazed that the altering of different photos, some taken years apart, could be combined to create a convincing new image. The use of this technique in politics is pretty remarkable as well. Even if the image is fake and, the reputation of the person being slandered is ruined.

The idea that if you show someone one of these altered pictures and that they appear real forces us to question what we think is real and what we believe is real. Each of the example images shown in the reading appears genuine, and I would consider them so if I did not know that I was reading about how to do things with pictures. To show these images to someone without the information that they are altered is as good as lying to someone. The belief that 'a photograph is fact' reinforces truth in whoever they are shown to. It is kind of like hearing a rumor from someone who ALWAYS tells the truth - you just believe them instantly. This kind of power is incredible and dangerous at the same time. Photographic images can no longer be trusted, as they may or may not display something that does or does not exist or did or did not happen.

I also like the discussion about how music is traveling down the same path. Sampling can hardly be considered a musical art. It seems like anyone could just 'garageband' a one hit wonder and make millions as long as they have the right connections and can sort of rhyme. There is a lesser appreciation for the days of old, when singers sung, and there was no digital alteration of pitch and sound. Both the butchering of music with digital technology and the alteration of photographic images discussed in this essay, I think can be contributed to the consumer culture that America has developed, but that is another discussion all-together.

“Ectoplasm: Photography in the Digital Age” - Lauren

Although William Mitchell’s “How To Do Things With Pictures” was undeniably quite entertaining, I found Geoffrey Batchen’s “Ectoplasm: Photography in the Digital Age” to be a perfect last reading. There has been quite a bit of controversy surrounding digitally altered photography—for obvious reasons—but Batchen puts it in an ironically positive light surround that of death and deals with the matter in a fashion similar to how Walter Benjamin handles the situation in his time.

Aside from Batchen’s discussion of the effects of the digital era on photography, especially concerning its very existence, what was very interesting to me was his point about how “digital imaging is an overtly fictional process” (15). Batchen essentially suggests the return of the aura to photography as an art from because of digital processing: “digital processes actually return the production of photographic images to the whim of the creative human hand” (15). So what is so negatively viewed as the destroyer of photography’s ability to convey the truth is actually its aide in fulfilling what the medium has longed to obtain since Benjamin argued that it had itself eliminated in art—that of the aura.

I also found it quite entertaining, after having learned about the various ways photographs could be manipulated prior to digital processing, to read about how people considered these “pseudo-photographs” so detrimental to the reality of photography. It is interesting that most people do not know the history of photographic doctoring and do not realize that photography has survived these alterations and evolutions thus far. So why should it suddenly disappear? Like Batchen says, as long as there is a desire to take photographs, photography will remain.

How to do Things with Pictures

A really interesting way to kind of come full circle with all the images we've seen and to really start thinking about what photographs do, from their captions, to the way they've been played around with and "photoshopped". I especially liked the part concerning captions, since we've been dealing with that in class. I think a part that kind of falls under this category is Author as well (Sherri Levine after Walker Evans: did we see or interpret or get a different feeling from her images versus Walker Evans? despite the fact that they were the same photograph?) Also it this concept tied in with the images we looked at by Greg L. ( i forget his name..) that were labelled this photograph empasizes my black features vs the white features. Just the captioning alone led us so start understanding the pictures differently, despite the fact that they were the same photograph again. This article reminded me of a recent movie called Vantage Point where it is once incident of the US president getting shot but then you view the movie from different people's vantage point. There is ultimately one truth but the "author's" vantage point, or belief, or collection of ideas and goals leads to different understandings of an image or incident in the movie's case. I found it interesting that despite all of this photo's still become our frame of reference for somethings, where we find truth in them and trust them. "Just as pointing the finger indicates something real out there, so does the pointing camera... so a photograph ALWAYS tells us that something was actually out there", that something happened, that what is shown is truth. I wanted to put that quote next to cindy sherman's photographs where she titles them untitled film stills, indicating that yes, these ARE from a movie, yet we know that that never happened, there is no movie.. but the photograph shows somehting happening, there's an actress, there's a set, there's an untitled movie title, and there's a film still! Yet, there is no film. I thought the paradox of both of them placed side by side was interesting. 

Lorna Simpson

Lorna Simpson's art school background is interesting because it contained the two photographic countercurrents of photojournalistic documentary photography as well as the critical and iconic photography of defamiliarization. Photojournalism strives for objectivity as a way of understanding the world, and its "concerned photography" tries to examine social problems from an impartial point of view. Defamiliarization on the other hand attempts to challenge conceptions of objectivity by providing critical analysis in the form of subjective personal experience. Simpson, while gaining some of the photojournalist tradition was influenced by the trend of defamiliarization and "rather than just recording reality, she wanted to investigate it, to unravel it, to interrogate it, and if possible to re-envision reality."

The way she set out to do this was through deconstruction of documentary photography, avoiding stereotypes and cliches through a critical reexamining that discarded many of its conventions. Instead, she turned to techniques used in performance art such as repetition, dialogues and monologues in order to make the images more of a work of narrative. In this way she was able to explore her personal reality, and most of her work revolves around the subject of African American identity. With the subjective techniques of narrative, she is able to challenge the limiting characterizations of African Americans imposed on them by the larger society. For example, in Gestures/Reenactments she is able to expose and critique society's views of black masculinity as being either powerless, or threatening, or both, by the inclusion of a short narrative that gives personal insight into how the subject is perceived.

Lorna Simpson

What initially struck me about Lorna Simpson was how the images of her travels were not just casual snapshots, but photographs that “exhibited a sense of great visual control” (286). These images demonstrate that her talent was not just taught; she was naturally successful when it came to taking photographs. I really admire the fact that she used her innate talent to tell stories and create interesting art. Simpson’s transition from documentary to conceptual photography both intrigued and confused me. She based her evolution from documentary to conceptual photography on the idea that “she needed to demonstrate to herself that the camera was not just an instrument to probe into the depths of truth…she wanted to reveal it also as a machine that spewed all manner of conventions and clichés…that had to be overcome if the camera was truly to become ‘a wholly philosophical product’” (292). This seems, to me, like an odd goal. By revealing the camera as a machine that spews stereotypes does not seem like it would benefit her intentions. However, overall, this statement confused me and I hope to talk about it in class tomorrow.
By focusing on this goal, Simpson led herself to conceptual photography. I find her journey to getting to film stills roundabout, for she wanted to defamiliarize her self with the documentary image and find a new type of photography. I understand her desire to find her niche in the photography world, but I just feel that the path she created for herself was filled with many obstacles. However, this process obviously beneficial because it led her to create some phenomenal photographs.

Lorna Simpson

In this essay about the photography of Lorna Simpson, Enwezor describes how Simpson grapples with the ideas of racism, poverty, civil rights, and politics. Her images are unique because they aim to restore historical truth. I thought it was interesting that Simpson denotes the cliche " a picture is worth a thousand words" by incorporating the sense of "language" into her photography and attempting to "erase captions that was so necessary for the denotative aspect of documentary practice." Her photography became similar to that of Cindy Sherman because of the feeling of a behind the scenes narrative, like the picture was a piece of a larger film, and not just a singular work.

Race and gender were a large part of the ideas Simpson hoped to evoke in her photography. Simpson "fell in love with photography so to speak with photorapgy as a shaper of subjectivity," meaning that she lost the need for photographic realism, much like her contemporary artists. The subjectivity was also known as the "crisis of representation" or the essentialist views of race and gender of the time.

"Simpson reworks the ethical paradigm of the documentary, ctritically questionning the maudlin sentimentality introduced in the early photography of the face as a window to the soul of the subject." Simpson instead makes the subject not the main focus of the image, but one has to extract their personality and "soul" from not their eyes, but their surroundigns, or race, or gender.

Lorna Simpson

When I first started reading this piece and looked at some of the pictures in the reader I had no idea that Lorna Simpson was a Black woman. I don't know if that was the intention of the writer or if it should have been obvious to me, but it is interesting to me that I assumed otherwise, or that the writer didn't make it obvious--probably because it is important to the essay that we recognize her struggle with interpreting race, gender, etc. in her photography. I thought the first part about the two Morrocan women thought provoking because we have never really discussed the idea of how a photo is affected when the subject disapproves of the photographer. For me it seems the photographer has always been behind the scenes, or creating works of fiction where they would automatically be allowed to take theses pictures. It rivals the confusing feelings when we see works of Sherrie Levine, where we wonder if this photograph "should've" been taken. The picture of the Morrocan women also makes me wonder about the truth of a photo, because when we look at this picture the look of "I don't want my picture taken" could be mistaken for "I'm not happy with my life." Or they could be one and the same. Most people probably take for granted that the photographer was an intermediate in creating that image, but reading this and examining the photo makes us think about that.

The writer talks about how Lorna Simpson wanted to "detach" herself from the camera. This is an idea I haven't thought about and is particularly confusing to me. The early writers that we read seemed to whole heartedly believe that we were detached from the camera, stating it was a machine that replicated nature with absolutely no subjectivity. Simpson, and most others, seemed to feel differently. This probably goes hand in hand with her wanting to get away from "documentary photography." She wanted the camera to "...betray its clandestine undermining of the body..."(301 of R) I am confused as to what she means by this. In this section the writer discusses her piece Wigs, in which there are individual photographs of wigs printed on felt, and a sense of the lack of a body. A detachment of race and gender from something personal. Perhaps these two detachments go together. She wanted to detach her race and gender from her photographer-self. Maybe she felt that documentary photography was too subjective even when it was trying to express human truths. By detaching herself from the camera she felt could reveal more truth.

Lorna Simpson

This writing by Okwui Enwezor was my favorite piece thus far.  I especially enjoyed the discussion of race and gender issues that Lorna Simpson complicates in her artwork.  Throughout this class I have been hoping for an article that deals with a photographer who can tackle these two difficult issues and I think Simpson does so in a very appropriate way, especially considering the historical moment in which she was operating.  In the post-civil rights and post-women's liberation era I think that a lot of the issues that Simpson confronts with her artwork were slipping through the cracks.  She deals specifically with what it meant to be a black woman during this crucial moment.  

Her artwork is an amazing reflection of the identity politics that black (and minority) women were, and still are, struggling with.  Because the subject of the civil rights movement was often assumed to be a black man and the women's liberation was primarily targeting white women, black women were left with no one to champion for their rights.  Simpson's art clearly is directed at raising awareness of the anonymity that black women felt at this time; the faceless, distorted, pieced together bodies represent how black women were overlooked in all the civil rights movements.  

I was less interested in her methods of photographs as I was in her overall message.  I really connected with this piece and loved that it discussed the social issues that Simpson was highlighting.

Lorna Simpson

I found Okwui Enwezor’s essay on Lorna Simpson to be very informative and interesting. Even though some concepts of Lorna’s art I did not quite understand completely I got the just of her ideas. Throughout the essay I felt that there was constant upbringing about racial issues that were analyzed through her work which distracte from her original motifs and motives in her work.
In the first passage I was relieved to read that Simpson “embarked on a trip of discovery” because during that era I felt that not many photographers were going out and taking photographic moments, instead majority of the professional field was more interested in creating their own image than searching for it. By traveling all over the world Simpson was able to capture culture without necessarily being involved or as Enwezor said “working around the edges of her subject”. Because of her acceptance of worldly knowledge she was able to adapt to different cultures see an image in everyday traditions.
Another concept of Simpson’s work that I found very interesting was not of her images but her use of language and words to influence. Enwezor’s describes the different sensations of seeing and speaking as contradictions. Anyone one could look at an image and create their own subtitles or story of what is being presented but then looking at the text that is given provides a different perspective and conflicts what one wants to believe. They are “separate forms of knowing “that can trigger a memory that will make one relate to the image.

Lorna Simpson

Lorna Simpson has a different approach to photography, which is why we are probably reading about her. It seems that most of the photographers we read about did something very great, interesting, or controversial. Anyway, what she does different is kind of protest/photojournalism approach. It seems as though she is arguing about political topics through her photography. She seems to have a strong belief in civil rights, a respectable thing to defend, but her message is not obvious. In "Easy for who to Say", the A-E-I-O-U, Amnesia, Error, Indifference, Omission, and Uncivil posted on the faces of African American females is not specifically clear, but present none-the-less. Also in her photos, "Sicily", Eastern Parkway Brooklyn, NY", and "Flushing Meadows Park", there is no central subject, but rather, they look like a picture someone might take with a modern Kodak at a gathering somewhere. The text says to "notice that she has completely avoided the cliche of urban strife, poverty, and dilapitated neighborhoods in which the black subjects are normally portrayed." This feels as if they events are natural, unstaged, and fluid. It also allows for some strength in the African American community. As commited as her work shows she is to the cause of civil rights, she does not choose a composition showing disgrace or drawing sympathy. I think is a good depiction because it shows the progress that had been made in this area over the last 30 years or so. Overall, this was a good writing and explanation of Simpson's work, but it got a little too much into the issue of rascism and left the field of photography at times.

Lorna Simpson

In this essay, Okwui Enwezor, gets into an in-depth description and analysis of Lorna Simpson’s work. She was most concerned with “historical” truth in which the Enwezor says, “those images calcified like plaque in the social unconscious.” This is a great statement because it allows for an abstract concept to be understood through the process of correlation (“…calcified like plaque…”). Enwezor then gets into a lengthy discussion about race in her photography, in which I lost some interest.

Although there are many elements of Simpsons work to be considered, I found it most interesting that Simpson connected language with her photography. The purpose this serves is to get across a specific idea to the reader, and help to encode how the author meant for the message to be interpreted, triggering a memory, and yet still leaving the completion of the interpretation to the viewer. By using this technique, her images are regarded as a conceptual framework for photography. I really liked that she used this technique of “linguistic signs” in her work, because not only are the photographs interesting in enough, there is also more to look for in figuring out what a photo represents.

It is interesting to see that during the 1960s photography was one of the main methods for recording, documenting, and witnessing the subjective realm of art in which the products thereof served as a reminder. This method of recording of oneself brought about a philosophical journey of self-knowledge. The work of Simpson is something that I have not seen before and for me, reaches beyond the common artistic purpose of photography.