“Out with the currency of the Kingdom!” cries the authors “Denounce
the ways of the old nobles and elite! Join by learning and using the true form
of literacy, Transmediation!”
Okay so it really wasn’t that dramatic at any point
throughout the reading in any way shape or form. However, the message is still
pretty clear. Why do we still only teach what the nobles and clergy learned hundreds
of years ago when many more types of texts have revealed themselves, or became
more apparent, since then? There are good things and bad things I see about
this article. I will start off with the bad first. This article was written in
2001 and not a whole lots has changed in some regards since this had been
written. “How can there be possibly be good news?!” you might ask. Well, quite
simply the wheels are starting actually turn more and more and the need is
making itself apparently more obvious. In many ways the authors were right in
and in many ways I doubted they even foresaw how saturated students would
become in media. Personally I feel it has been fueled by the rapid advancement
of the smartphone in terms of becoming cheaper, more available to nonbusiness
users, and more reliable. This Google age has only increased our need to help
students understand what they are being bombarded by, so they can learn that
the image they are seeing might not exactly be nothing more than a means to
lure you into something.
I found the Man of
Steel article to be quite interesting to think about because of our talks today
on what is actually art. It’s funny that the author states that almost 25 years
prior it often wasn’t considered art, at least among the “art world”. I think,
and people can disagree, it shows that viewers can lag behind an artist work as
they have done many times throughout history. In some ways the sad old adage rings
true “you won’t be famous until you’re dead”.
It was interesting to about how art history is taught, and
it seemed to be mostly everything I have experienced when I have been taught. I
always did love my art professor when he taught art history because he would
tell what else might be going on as a whole. It was a wonderful reminder to be
reminded that certain aspects of modern art started to appear because artist
were just starting to look at Japanese wood block prints because Japan was now
forced out of isolation.
“We want to decode the artist’s intentions, to understand
what was in the artist’s mind” (pg. 68). This seemed like I should have read
this sentence yesterday due to the nature of the topic. However, even though I
fully understand as a viewer wanting to decode what the creators mind was
thinking. It truly is still and should be ment for a viewer.
As a minor off topic thought process I feel the need to type
up more of my thoughts on the Neighbors exhibit while I still remember.
I was pondering my own brain as a photographer and
thought “Some of that stuff is
beautiful, but is it really legal or does it just cross my own ethical line
perhaps?” This led to well the subject matter isn’t in a public place so not
legal. Then I thought but it is taken from a private space so really probably
has some legal ground. Then I jumped to well even though these images are from
large window apartment buildings most of them are probably second level or
higher so it wouldn’t actually be that easy to see from a public space so maybe
not legal again.
After all this back and forth I decided to actually look up
these photographers rights since someone has chimed them during my unit plan
when they were suggesting some borderline legal or at least ethical ideas.
How true these are I’m not completely sure but it does add
another idea in the mix.
No comments:
Post a Comment