Saturday, September 25, 2010

can art be mechanically reproduced?

When something is reproduced so many times, I feel that it definitely loses its artistic elements.  When something is created by an artist, it has uniqueness and rareness to it.  The artist that initially produced that particular piece of art put their strengths, talent, and feelings into that piece. 
Consider The Last Supper by Leonardo da Vinci.  A quick search on the internet shows how frequently this piece has been reproduced.

The first two representations of Leonardo da Vinci's last supper seem to be "close" to originals, but you can also see how the colour in the image is brightened.  The third image is obviously a blatent reproduction of the original:




http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/The_Last_Supper_(Leonardo)




http://www.thebricktestament.com/latest_additions/archive_2007.html
 



Once it is reproduced over and over again, those intimate feelings are lost.  At times, however, the reproducibility of art can be important.  If art was never reproduced, the people of today may not have had the chance to witness such beautiful creations, even if it was a reproduction.  No doubt, some of the unique elements of the piece will be lost in a reproduction.  However, a reproduction can still give people of today a taste of the work of talents of the past.  That said, when a piece of art is mechanically reproduced over and over again, society loses the true essence of that piece of art was meant to symbolize. 

In my opinion, photography IS art.  It is meant to express something.  It is meant to capture something.  It is meant to show the viewer of the photograph something through the eyes of the photographer.  How can one view the following photograph of model/acress Lily Cole taken by photographer Sølve Sundsbø and not consider it art?


One of Henry Peach Robinson's most famous pieces was Fading away, created in 1858.  It was composed of five negatives which shows a girl dying from tuberculousis, and her family around her.  People were not used to this type of imagery being in a photograph; people were used to seeing such images in paintings.  Perhaps Hentry Peach Robinson was trying to break down walls and show that photographs "were allowed" to have such imagery in it as well.



Digitalization has made photography much more accessible to a wider range of people.  It allows one to immediately view a photograph after it has been taken as opposed to having to wait for the developing process to take place first.  It allows even the most novice user access to taking a decent photo.  Photography has continued to advance over the years and I am sure that there is much more advancement to be seen in the future where photography is concerned.








Monday, September 20, 2010

early days of photography & portraits of today

Photography in the early days and portraits of today varied in many ways.  The first of many ways in which photography differed is in the technical process itself.  In the 1850s, there were two main methods of photography that were used for different reasons.  One method was used primarily for studio typed portraits, while the other method of photography was primarily used for outdoor photography.  


The processes used to create photography were also quite complex and varied, depending on the clarity/detail desired.  A few examples of this include calotype, which was used due to its inexpensive, light, and robust properties.  The Le Gray method was used to achieve a more transparent texture, resulting in a glass-like finish.


Portraits of the past were, at first, reserved for those of high status.  Clientele such as doctors, lawyers, politicians, and other people with a great deal of money were able to get their portrait taken.  With the initiation of a standardization process of the photo-taking processes, the cost of such photos decreased greatly.  This enabled those who perhaps did not have as many financial resources to also have their photos taken.


Today, photos and portraits are much more affordable than they were in the past.  In fact, with the rise in popularity of digital cameras, the ability to purchase a camera and take pictures on one’s own is an alternative to getting a professional photograph or portrait taken.  That said, the cost of having professional portraits taken can often still be pricey.  According to professional photographer Karolin Balash’s website, the cost of, for example, baby portraits has a cost of $800. (http://www.karolinbalash.com) Similar to portraits of the past, the photographer has to consider their expertise, equipment, assistants, and professional equipment to be used during the photo session when establishing their costs.


Photographers of today also have access to plenty of photo editing software that can be used to enhance and perfect photos that have been taken, whereas that luxury did not exist for photos of the past.


In the photograph below, you will see a portrait taken by Matthew Brady (May 18, 1822-Jan 15-1896). (http://www.mathewbrady.com/)  Matthew Brady was a photographer who was famous for his pictures of celebrities as well as his documentation of the American Civil War. It was his photos of Abraham Lincoln that were used on the $5 dollar bill as well as the Lincoln Penny. 



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abraham_Lincoln_1860.jpg  

In these times, portraits seem to simply depict the subject and did not seem to have the specific goal of being provocative or “eye-catching”.


Compare this to a portrait taken of now President Barack Obama which appeared on the cover of the March 2009 issue of Vanity Fair taken by Annie Leibovitz.



http://www.glamourvanity.com/celebrities/barack-obama-covers-vanity-fair/ 

This portrait, while also of a president, is in stark contract to the picture taken of Abraham Lincoln several years prior.  The photo of Abraham Lincoln has the president standing, looking very authoritative, serious,  and “in control”.  While Barack Obama is, as president, all of these things, he appears more approachable in this portrait.  He is seated, without a jacket, and appears to be more relaxed.


This photo is also a testament to the advanced technology available in more recent times.  This portrait taken by Annie Leibovitz is actually a photograph taken for the July 2007 issue of Vanity Fair, even before Barack Obama was president.  In addition to that, this photo also had actor Don Cheadle in it.  For the March 2009 Vanity Fair Cover, the background colour was changed and Don Cheadle was completely cropped out of the picture.  



http://www.observer.com/2009/media/so-much-change-vanity-fair-uses-2007-obama-cover-march-2009-issue


On a side note, I also found the following picture interesting in that it depicts both Barack Obama and Abraham Lincoln in the same shot.  I am yet to determine whether or not Matthew Brady was the person who shot either of these particular portraits of President Lincoln as well!




http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2009/10/barack-obama-annie-leibovitz.html






Sources:

A History of Photography


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abraham_Lincoln_1860.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathew_Brady


http://www.glamourvanity.com/celebrities/barack-obama-covers-vanity-fair/


http://www.karolinbalash.com


http://www.observer.com/2009/media/so-much-change-vanity-fair-uses-2007-obama-cover-march-2009-issue


http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2009/10/barack-obama-annie-leibovitz.html

 

Friday, September 10, 2010

Florence..who?


Hello Everyone,

My name is Florence Tewogbade and I'm in my 5th semester of Business Administration-Human Resources.  Upon graduation, I hope to get into the field of recruiting.

My hobbies include volunteering, baking/cake decorating, and travelling. 

I'm pretty happy to take this course as it is outside of the HR realm that I have been used to for the past few semesters.  It's always nice to delve into something different and new.  I look forward to learning and participating.