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
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
No comments:
Post a Comment