DMS Blog #6

Hello again,

This is just more pictures for my class...enjoy.

Signed,
Going to bed

DMS Blog #5

Hey All Remember Me,

Here is my posts for project #1.

 ORIGINAL

 EDITED

 ORIGINAL (THIS ONE WAS NOT EDITED TILL THE END)

 ORIGINAL

 EDITED

 ORIGINAL (THUMBS UP FOR THIS GUY LOL)

 EDITED

 ORIGINAL

FINAL POSTCARD
(darn my animation wouldn't load, but it is awesome :D)
Hope you enjoyed this, thanks for viewing.

Signed,

AMT

DMS Blog #4

Hello Again, Agh I'm getting tired of talking to you,

Anyway, in "The Paradoxes Digital Photography," Lev Manovich claims that "Digital Photography simply does not exist". What he means by this is, that everything is "going digital now", so anyone can create photos, make movies, etc. So, movies are taking the place of photos. Also, photography is an art. If anyone can do it, there are really no photographers, no editors, etc. hence no digital  photography. There is just digital art, for everyone. Manovich writes about the digital revolution, as he calls it. In this he states,  when T.V.s, X-rays, security cameras, computers, and digital cameras were becoming popular everything was dependent on digital computers. We humans percieve this as better, but are digital images really better than real photos? Are digital images worth questioning the concepts of realism and representation? Digital photography both strengthens and weakens the photographic image. With these questions he then argues that digital photography does not exist. He states that digital editing is not as traditional as before which confuses the concepts. With everything constantly changing photography may soon end. Everyone can make a movie now! Is there really a difference between digital technologies and their uses? No, therefore "Digital Photography simply does not exist".

Going off on a tangent, I felt it hard to write about his topic. I don't really understand his conccept, what is he arguing, and what he's trying to say. Honestly I completely disagree with him, digital photography does so exist so how can he say it doesn't? What am I supposed to say about that now? I think that I've said all I can say really but I'll right a little more to make the point clear.

Now, back to the essay. Another point in the essay, which by the way I don't understand why he put this in here but it works, is the socialist realism of Jurasic Park. He states that there are differences between traditional and digital  photography. Some of these differences are, one is a film based reproduction  of an image versus  its reproduction in a computer as a grid of pixels having a fixed resolution and taking up a certain amount of space on a computer. Original image versus an enhanced/edited image. You can recreate an event all on the computer (3-D/animations). Realism is studying 3-D computer graphics. Yet, the goal of computer graphics is not realism but photorealism which Jurasic Park does very well. So, this digital photographic work is real all to real (not digital photography, cause remember it does not exist).

Signed,
What's My Name

DMS Blog #3

Hey,

This is my photoshop assignment, horrible by the way. I can do much better, but I was kind of in a time crunch because my boyfriend doesn't know how to mail things. Hence, I still do not have my laptop charger, sad face. So, here is my project...enjoy. :)

ORIGINAL

 BACKGROUND CHANGE

 TRUE BLUE ON B&W

BLUE EYES B&W BACKGROUND

 ORIGINAL

 ORIGINAL

MY FACE ON JENNIFER ANISTON

Signed,

Yours Truly

DMS Blog #2

Hola It's Me Again,

Well, to start with I thought that in this essay he skips around a lot. At the beginning I was not too sure what he was really talking about. Towards the end I understood more of what he was trying to say. I think it was mostly the way he transitioned from one topic to the next that threw me off. At first he talks mostly about art, so the reader gets the idea that the essay is about how art is dead, but then he switches to technologies and how they are constantly changing. Then again, he returns to art, and the reader realizes that the essay is probable more about art.

Also, I do agree a little with what he is saying. Yes, everything is changing and there is always going to be something newer and better, but just because something else has "taken over" for the "lesser" product does not mean it has to be forgotten. There is always going to be "the next big thing" and everyone who "goes with the flow" is going to drop the old model and pick up the new one. Yet, there are some people who like the older products because that is "old reliable". Things from the past are not meant to be forever, but they are meant to be remembered, marveled, glorified. "The glory days" so to speak, which most of the time they are.

If Benjamin was able to travel in time and come to the present, I think he would have a heart attack and die. Ha ha, no just kidding. However, I do believe he would be shocked. He probably would feel that no art was truly original any more. Since, now we have the ability to create, recreate, edit, and enhance. There are so many recreations of original works of art that it is hard to tell what the original is any more. I think that Benjamin would given these new technologies every one can make art, every one can be an artist. So, therefore if every one is an artist then who really is a true artist? Honestly, I feel with this question there are so many possible answers, that I feel I am putting too much of my own opinion in to it. Well, I guess it is really how you interpret the essay. I feel that art is put more on the back burner now a days because before computers and cameras people counted on paintings to be remembered (events and people, etc.). So, painters were highly valued people. Yet, now we have cameras to capture moments. We have video cameras to capture events. We have programs, computers, printers, and scanners, etc. so we can create, recreate, and share. So, where is there a place for art? It's in time, minds, people, and places. It's every where really. We are just finding better ways to make it.

Ta ta for Now,
AMT

DMS Blog #1

Hello It is Me Again,

Turns out I will be blogging again. I am writing a blog now for my DMS 121 course, and for those of you who are like OMG (again for those of you...Oh My God) I do not know what DMS stands for!? Well, DMS stands for Digital Media Studies. Which by the way is what I am majoring now (Media Studies). Yes, GASP I changed majors, but that is a longer story. Anyway, on to the real reason I started this blog today...

My reaction to reading Nato Thompson’s essay In Two Directions: Geography as Art, Art as Geography, and Trevor Paglen’s essay Experimental Geography.

Well, for one I agree with what both are trying to say. I think that Thompson is trying to say that maps are art and everything shown on a map (buildings, towns, roads, parks, factories, etc.) is what we are what we have created. Paglen also talks about maps, but he does not call them art. He simply says that maps are updated all the time by different people, proving what he is aiming at the entire time people grow with what they create/learn. Architecture is art, therefore cities are art. Also, maps are drawings, and drawings are art. Thus, I think that essentially our knowledge of the world and what it looked like was blank. When people went out and discovered the land we had maps of "blank" land. Soon after these maps begin to change as towns were made as more things began to grow. So, essentially the maps started out as a blank canvas of which the artist (map maker, architect, explorer, etc.) laid his art. Thompson says, "We are the water-treatment plant," meaning we (people, every one, every where) are the land. Since we have created the look of the land (man made land forms, etc.), and we have created the things on it such as the water-treatment plant. So, when he says this he simply means, we are what we make and what we create.

Thompson tells the reader about Paris and how it was designed to use the space that it is in. This further explains the concept that towns on maps are art, since the architect of the city designed/created it meaning it is their art. Yet, what if someone else had been chosen to design Paris? What if Paris looked different than the way it does now? It would change the way we see it. It would change the way we perceive Paris, but it would still be Paris, it would still be art, and it would still be a part of our lives today.

Space is defined in the English dictionary as the unlimited or incalculably great three dimensional realm expense in which all material objects are located and all events occur. Thomas defines space as everything that has been created up until today. Paglen defines "the production of space" as humans creating the world around them and in turn being created by the world around them. Therefore, space is not a place, but is actively produced. Paglen says that the world is simply made of stuff and only stuff mostly created and evolved over time by humans.

Going back to what Thompson said about water-treatment plants, we are what we create. Similarly, humans create the world around them and in turn are created by the world around them. Therefore, both have the same point, in my opinion, without humans' creations we do not evolve.

Signing Off For Now BBL,
AMT (is back in black)