Archive

Archive for October, 2009

busy brain

October 30, 2009 Leave a comment

keep trying to organize all my thougths……………………………… thinking and typing…………………………………………







Advertisements
Categories: blog

computer artist in Goldsmiths

October 27, 2009 Leave a comment

William Lathman

Categories: blog

Berlinguer I love You!

October 23, 2009 Leave a comment

Hey Guys! Have to see this film! Absolutely a cult piece from Italy! Ceck on the University Library?!?!

Categories: blog

PARADOXES OF DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY

October 17, 2009 1 comment
from 'PHOTOGRAPHY AFTER PHOTOGRAPHY' Exhibition Catalogue. Germany 1995.

Digital Revolution?

Digital photographs function in an entirely different way from traditional photographs. Or do they? Shall we accept that digital imaging represents a radical rupture with photography? Is an image, mediated by computer and electronic technology, radically different from an image obtained through a photographic lens and embodied in film? If wedescribe film-based images using such categories as depth offield, zoom, a shot or montage, what categories should beused to describe digital images? Shall the phenomenon ofdigital imaging force us to rethink such fundamental conceptsas realism or representation?… The logic of the digital photograph is one of historical continuity and discontinuity. The digital image tears apartthe net of semiotic codes, modes of display, and patterns ofspectatorship in modern visual culture — and, at the sametime, weaves this net even stronger. The digital imageannihilates photography while solidifying, glorifying andi mmortalizing the photographic. In short, this logic is that of photography after photography.

 Digital Photography Does Not Exist 

It is easiest to see how digital (r)evolution solidifies(rather than destroys) certain aspects of modern visualculture — the culture synonymous with the photographic image– by considering not photography itself but a related film-based medium — cinema…. Thus, film may soon disappear — but not cinema. On thecontrary, with the disappearance of film due to digital technology, cinema acquires a truly fetishistic status….

Even more fetishized is “film look” itself — the soft, grainy, and somewhat blurry appearance ofa photographic image which is so different from the harsh andflat image of a video camera or the too clean, too perfectimage of computer graphics. The traditional photographicimage once represented the inhuman, devilish objectivity oftechnological vision. So while digital imaging promises to completely replacethe techniques of filmmaking, it at the same time finds newroles and brings new value to the cinematic apparatus, theclassic films, and the photographic look. This is the first paradox of digital imaging. But surely, what digital imaging preserves and propagates are only the cultural codes of film or photography. Underneath, isn’t there a fundamental physical difference between film-based image and a digitally encodedimage? In other words, the physical difference between photographic and digital technology leads to the difference in the logical status of film-based and digital images and also to the difference in their cultural perception. How fundamental is this difference?

If we limit ourselves by focusing solely, as Mitchell does, on theabstract principles of digital imaging, then the difference between a digital and a photographic image appears enormous. But if we consider concrete digital technologies and theiruses, the difference disappears. Digital photography simplydoes not exist…. while in theory digital technology entails theflawless replication of data, its actual use in contemporarys ociety is characterized by the loss of data, degradation, and noise; the noise which is even stronger than that oftraditional photography. But even the pixel-based representation, which appears to be the very essence of digital imaging, can no longer betaken for granted.

Recent computer graphics software havebypassed the limitations of the traditional pixel grid whichlimits the amount of information in an image because it has afixed resolution. In both programs, the pixel is no longer a”final frontier”; as far as the user is concerned, it simplydoes not exist …. While Mitchell aims to deduce culturefrom technology, it appears that he is actually doing thereverse. In fact, he simply identifies the pictorialtradition of realism with the essence of photographic technology and the tradition of montage and collage with theessence of digital imaging. Both existed beforephotography, and both span different visual technologies andmediums.

Just as its counterpart, the realistic tradition extends beyond photography per se and at the same timeaccounts for just one of many photographic practices. Such examples question Mitchell’s idea that digitalimaging destroys the innocence of straight photography bymaking all photographs inherently mutable.

Straight photography has always represented just one tradition of photography; it always coexisted with equally populartraditions where a photographic image was openly manipulatedand was read as such. Equally, there never existed a singledominant way of reading photography; depending on the contextthe viewer could (and continue to) read photographs asrepresentations of concrete events, or as illustrations whichdo not claim to correspond to events which have occurred.

Digital technology does not subvert “normal” photography because “normal” photography never existed. I have considered some of the alleged physical differences between traditional and digital photography. But what is a digital photograph? My discussion has focused on thedistinction between a film-based representation of an imageversus its representation in a computer as a grid of pixel shaving a fixed resolution and taking up a certain amount of computer storage space.

In short, I highlighted the issue ofanalog versus digital representation of an image whiledisregarding the procedure through which this image isproduced in the first place. However, if this procedure isconsidered another meaning of digital photography emerges. In other words, 3-D computer graphicscan also be thought off as digital — or synthetic –photography.

I will conclude by considering the current state of theart of 3-D computer graphics. Here we will encounter the final paradox of digital photography. Common opinion holds that synthetic photographs generated by computer graphics arenot yet (or perhaps will never be) as precise in renderingvisual reality as images obtained through a photographic lens. However, I will suggest that such synthetic photographs are already more realistic than traditional photographs. Infact, they are too real.

This is then, the final paradox of digital photography. Its images are not inferior to the visual realism of traditional photography. They are perfectly real — all tooreal.

Categories: blog

ah se ye ye

October 17, 2009 Leave a comment

discover this band from Finland now, that’s great!

Categories: blog

totally confused

October 17, 2009 Leave a comment

new language, new faces, new media, new sounds, new thinking, new places

I don’t know what’s going on – ??

Categories: blog

Algorithmic Art

October 13, 2009 Leave a comment
Categories: blog