![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am always fascinated by discussions of reality in photographs -- though similar discussions crop up in almost any representational media these days. My fascination centers on those who maintain -- against what their eyes tell them -- that a particular photograph is "realistic" "a view just like it was." What is "real" in photographs has been manipulated since at least the Civil War when Matthew Brady would move the bodies of dead soldiers so they were more photogenic. So, who today -- given digital art -- could possibly believe that anything is real? The most recent chapter of this book showed up today on a 3D modeling discussion group. The question was about whether art using Poser models could be real, should be considered as real, should have a warning that the picture isn't real, etc. Of course, such art isn't real but what art is. Creators chase their tails on a periodic timetable; perhaps it has something to do with tides or the moon. Here is a list of the art they were discussing: Important discussion going on here and here and here and here on whether links subvert hierarchical structures and, therefore, power arrangements. |
Last modified: Friday, October 31, 2008 at 9:20 PM.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||