Monday, September 17, 2012
water bottle and friend
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Studium and Punctum
Studium: Person on a road, or path. Giving the thumbs up? Possibly an accidental shot, seeing as the road is blurred in places. Knowing the owner of the arm, I'm pretty sure she didn't plan out a fancy shot with blurring effects- she doesn't have the skills. Hair-tie and flowery shirt indicate girly girl... the pink lighter is girly, too, but that provides some potential level of either coolness or lameness, depending on how you look at it. Tattoos on wrist and maybe the thumb?... indicate a bad girl, possibly. The coloring on the thumb nail could be an on-purpose floral design to match the shirt, or, more likely, the flaking remnants of random nail colors the figure put on in an effort to demonstrate for her young niece how specific colors might actually look on a fingernail- per her niece's request. Who's to say? There's a lot of interpretable personality in the hand and forearm, contrasting with the blandness of the paved road. It's a nice effect, if I say so myself, especially as the blandness of the road is oddly blurred with a seeming motion and direction to it.
Punctum: Love that shirt. Makes me feel alive and like a hippie. There was a supernatural feel to the air. Mom peeking out from the tattoo.... I think Mom was tagging along that day. Something about the blandness is ironic. Ocean-like. Hands that are identical. The revealed personality is inviting- usually makes me cringe. Maybe because my face is absent. Most delicious veggie burger I've had to date. I might remember what I was carrying but it would make sense to not. Besides, I was carrying it for a friend. The sunset is spicy and tastes like cider.
Monday, September 3, 2012
reflection on intros
the earlier Intro begins with 5 questions. they are the sort that i might write to get my own creative juices flowing, in preparing to discuss and delve into thoughts about a given context. "how do images argue?" is the first question. given the story you told in class about the presentation of your video and the subsequent arguments, the fact that images have arguing power seems to be a focus of your passion for visual rhetoric. Maybe that's just my own, amateur interpretation, but the concept of an arguing image resonates, indeed.
It seems to carry on in what I feel is more of an impulsive draft of what you intended. There seems to be more personal consideration flowing uninhibited by concerns of structure (not that it is unstructured), presentation of information, or its likeness to something like a syllabus that could be viewed by students or professional audiences (again, not that it shouldn't be viewed by students or professional audiences- it's a great intro!). It is simply more contemplative and philosophical, to my reading, and i like that.
As for the post's title: "on the blueness of the sky..." My first impression is that the following information or visuals would be in an effort to celebrate and showcase the beauty and magnificence of the sky in its beautiful, blue form. However, the contrast between the pictures indicates a more provocative and controversial intent. With the boring, black and white graph, I imagine a similar argument I once had with my sister: "What color are polar bears?" she asked me. "White," I replied, dully. "Wrong!" She burst, triumphant. "They're black!" She proceeded to explain why polar bears are technically black, and gave evidence that I never cared to check up on. I remember feeling irritated, though. 'so what if they're ACTUALLY black in some literal, scientific way. The color I perceive them to be is white. That is the color I associate with them, and you, sister, and your dumb little skit to prove me wrong has tainted my perception.
Not that being forced into another view of thinking is bad. In fact, I quite like it. But the two pictures got me thinking along a similar vein. Some scientific graph may explain how the earth's "sky" is not actually blue, but that it is only perceived as blue by us humans from our earthly vantage point. In contrast with the beautiful nature photo, however, the latter seems to be giving a big middle finger with a simultaneous and condescending 'tut tut' to the graph. It IS fascinating to consider and be knowledgeable of the science behind what we perceive to be real... but look at the blue sky.... what an experience to feel so affected and blissfully wistful!
the later intro is engaging and playful (i love the WA color palette- i've only seen moonrise kingdom, but i'm going to change that). At the same time, though, it is thesis-driven. It provides an effective example of visual rhetoric, and breaks down multiple sides of viewing and characterizing the associated information and responses. In this way, it is distinct from the first intro in the degree of organization with which our brains consider the context of visual rhetoric. It is less philosophical; more meat and potatoes. but by whatever kind of method i am asked to think about, read about or see, new information and ideas over the course of this class, i am ready and excited. bring it on, visual rhetoric.
It seems to carry on in what I feel is more of an impulsive draft of what you intended. There seems to be more personal consideration flowing uninhibited by concerns of structure (not that it is unstructured), presentation of information, or its likeness to something like a syllabus that could be viewed by students or professional audiences (again, not that it shouldn't be viewed by students or professional audiences- it's a great intro!). It is simply more contemplative and philosophical, to my reading, and i like that.
As for the post's title: "on the blueness of the sky..." My first impression is that the following information or visuals would be in an effort to celebrate and showcase the beauty and magnificence of the sky in its beautiful, blue form. However, the contrast between the pictures indicates a more provocative and controversial intent. With the boring, black and white graph, I imagine a similar argument I once had with my sister: "What color are polar bears?" she asked me. "White," I replied, dully. "Wrong!" She burst, triumphant. "They're black!" She proceeded to explain why polar bears are technically black, and gave evidence that I never cared to check up on. I remember feeling irritated, though. 'so what if they're ACTUALLY black in some literal, scientific way. The color I perceive them to be is white. That is the color I associate with them, and you, sister, and your dumb little skit to prove me wrong has tainted my perception.
Not that being forced into another view of thinking is bad. In fact, I quite like it. But the two pictures got me thinking along a similar vein. Some scientific graph may explain how the earth's "sky" is not actually blue, but that it is only perceived as blue by us humans from our earthly vantage point. In contrast with the beautiful nature photo, however, the latter seems to be giving a big middle finger with a simultaneous and condescending 'tut tut' to the graph. It IS fascinating to consider and be knowledgeable of the science behind what we perceive to be real... but look at the blue sky.... what an experience to feel so affected and blissfully wistful!
the later intro is engaging and playful (i love the WA color palette- i've only seen moonrise kingdom, but i'm going to change that). At the same time, though, it is thesis-driven. It provides an effective example of visual rhetoric, and breaks down multiple sides of viewing and characterizing the associated information and responses. In this way, it is distinct from the first intro in the degree of organization with which our brains consider the context of visual rhetoric. It is less philosophical; more meat and potatoes. but by whatever kind of method i am asked to think about, read about or see, new information and ideas over the course of this class, i am ready and excited. bring it on, visual rhetoric.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)