William Jarvis

I found this text extremely interesting as I based my latest essay from the same idea, diving more into the social media side of it. I find this extremely interesting because photography is currently undergoing the biggest change it ever has, arguably. Because of the rise of social media and digital cameras, so many more people have access to photography who previously wouldn’t.

I did however find the text very difficult to read and feel like I couldn’t understand the true meaning behind what Andreia was trying to get across. Towards the end I really had little idea what she was talking about and lost interest due to the complicated academic research being included.  The quote “where post-photography repeats past models of vision explored in other media.” is another example, I cant quite figure out what is actually being said here.

I did however find the part about manipulation intriguing, that manipulation has always existed before people even starting doing it in darkrooms because essentially the camera is a manipulation tool itself (framing, composition, focal length, focus, exposure etc).

Whilst I find this topic somewhat engaging, I found the text incredibly difficult to read and understand critically. Something that I thought was quite interesting was the idea that all photography is documentary as it’s all technically ‘real’ in its own form and this can sometimes blur what is categorised as documentary and the rules that seem to surround it. I think documentary is interesting in theory due to the argument of ‘how real actually is it’ and ‘how far is too far’ when it comes to manipulating or staging the image. This is a fine line and comes down to matter of opinion I think. Is it morally wrong to stage a photo, which has the appearance of documentary style (natural lighting, relaxed framing etc), in order to create a more specifically engaging response from an audience/media? Or should it be true to the event which actually happened in front of the photographers eyes? It’s a question I might like to explore later on in an essay.

Overall I found the reading very difficult and feel like I couldn’t understand the underlying message of what was being said due to my lack of academic reading skill/english. What I could understand though was quite interesting and something I would explore further.

I found Notes To Self by Derek Conrad Murray quite an interesting read due to the amount of angles he presents and the pure amount of information shown. In some places I found it to drag on a little, perhaps due to my lack of interest in that specific area etc.

“There is perhaps a distinction to be made between the popular notion of the selfie: the visual expression of vanity that is ubiquitous on social media sites like Facebook – and the more artistically motivated photographic self-portrait. As a visual form they can be totally indistinguishable, but the intentions that drive their production and social function vary greatly” This idea of ‘is a selfie different from a  self-portrait’ is something that interested me. I agree that for the most part they can be indistinguishable (apart from digital quality differences and the fact that your arm might be leading up to the camera) however its more the audience and presentation in how they are different. Selfies are basically throw-a-way images, treated almost like a text message in some cases (snapchat). Throughout our online presence on social media we scroll past so many selfies per day it just seems to be over-populated, we don’t think about them anymore. Its just the norm, like being given a name at birth. Whereas self portraits have thought and meaning behind the image its self, connotations, a much longer process/technique to produce. It’s quite an interesting text and would consider researching this more, and seeing how this article will be relevant in 5-10 years time when photography has evolved even more due to social media and technology evolution.

In this article by Ruxandra Looft, she looks at how social media has effected the way in which genders are represented and the various waves of feminism. She uses the Amanda De Cadenet story to show how this issue is being dealt with.  “she was encouraged by peers in the industry to remain in front of the camera as a model, where she would likely find more career success than if she pursued the path of photographer.” This quote explores how targeted women were in the industry, stating that because she is a certain gender this dictates what side of the camera she is on.

I think feminist movements have changed the way females are viewed in the photographic and film industry, along with social media, however the problem still exists. Amanda’s project GirlGaze uses social media as a way to explore this and publicise the issues that are present in this industry (and many others). I think this is a great idea to use social media as it is a very efficient way to convey your project onto a large number of people.

This was a really intriguing read for me as I have a strong interest in the evolution into digital photography/editing and the effects that this has on the way images are produced along with how audiences are interpreting them. Joan explores the side of this in terms of Photoshop manipulating and the alteration of a digital image to look and represent something completely different from the subject that was originally photographed.

In terms of the writing style it seems incredibly relaxed which makes it easy to understand but also leaves it quite vague in places. “Keira probably asks herself why she should bother with surgery and uncomfortable silicone implants when the same results can be obtained with the wave of a digital wand” – I don’t quite understand the angle this is coming from or whether it’s just an unnecessary comment. From the eyes of an audience, viewed from a static specific medium, the digital enhancements may seem realistic, however this is simply a cover and does not represent her personal life or thoughts, hence why I don’t understand that quote.