I like the work that Earth artist like Andy Goldsworthy do I think it really shows the beauty that can be found around us and how you can use the materials that can be found all around us. However, in some of the works I didn’t like how the Earth works were changing the Earth. Like Sprial Jetty I think that the piece is really cool looking but it in a way is like look how I changed the Earth to make it look beautiful. Which seems to be the opposite point that the Earth works artist would want to be making. Because then you could argue that any change to the landscape is beautifying it. Like removing a forest to build a Wal-mart. To me if the point of the Earth works is to show people how there is beauty in the natural land it would be better to show it in that state rather then altering it. I think the main reason that we change the landscape so much is that with a growing plant we need to. There are so many people and they all need a place to live and work. I mean imagine if there were no towns? It seems only logical that as people we would build communities being that we are a social species. No only do I find beauty in the natural landscape but I also find beauty in the development. I enjoy just walking around downtown Ann Arbor looking at all the architecture. Being that my father is homebuilder I even find beauty in subdivisions. Yet, I believe that there should be a balance between the developed and the natural environment. I think that as people we get a certain pleasure in being able to change the Earth in the physical sense. Just like as artists we get pleasure out of making things. By changing the landscape we feel that we’ve proved that we are strong. It’s like look at what I built and the bigger the better it is. I believe that it started as a necessity we needed shelter and now it’s a way for people to prove their power.
This section of culture jam called for major reform of our American culture and perspective from fellow culture jammers. At this point, I do think that cultural reformation is upon us. In order to fully spark this mass mental shift of “cool” Lasn is right in saying that as culture jammers we have to come together. I would say that at this point in time, compared to ten or twenty years ago there are so many more people who have at least become aware of the negative effects our consumer culture. The time truly is ripe to call for a major reformation and reevaluation of cool. However, in order for that to happen groups like ad busters need to become more accessible to the public. This may require more publicity and advertising of groups like these, or education in schools. Another point that I found particularly engaging was the section where Lasn was talking about our black and white way of viewing the world. I completely agree that we need to regain our strength, individuality and lives and I think that this can start with how we approach education in America. Generally, kids today are being taught facts, answers that are right and wrong, dates, and equations. I’m not arguing the unimportance of these, I think that in order to be successful and a good problem solver you need to understand basic information and history. However, we live in a completely different world today than we did twenty years ago. If we want to know a fact or date we can just go to Google and teach ourselves some new information. Kids today need to learn how to problem solve and think adaptively and independently. This method of teaching will not only help kids be prepared for the new, ever changing future, but it will also help change American way of life.
This week we continued on with Culture Jam, reading the winter section. First off, my opinion of the book: the author is an anti-American who is trying to be this revolutionary by pointing out odd and contorted comparisons. Don’t worry, I am going to cite a few examples. The first example is on page 59, which he titles “The End of the American Dream”. He defines the American dream as it was seen in the 1950’s, a dreamlike land where we were happy and fit and we saved money and we were just perfect. Then he continues to describe us now as a cult of slobs and people who overuse every resource and are ruining the world. Sorry, but he pretty much put a heavy spin on both views. We all know that the 1950’s weren’t perfect, that there were a lot of screwed up people, and that the happy-green-lawn-sitcom-tv-dinner families didn’t exist. And today we are messed up of course, but we aren’t barbarians, by any means. Essentially, this guy is spinning the way we are just for the sake of his argument – I could argue 100% in the opposite direction if needed to, I could spin examples to make us look great now and horrible in the fifties. Next example, moving right along: he begins to talk about his car that he had to buy parts for and felt that he was getting ripped off when a part cost $7 when the materials were probably 35 cents. This had “long soured his relationship with the auto industry”. GOOD, no one cares what you think, you’re not buying just materials, you’re buying the thought process that went into that part, the engineering of the piece, the making and creation of it, the material, the distribution, the selling, and loads of other people who were involved. Hell, even the guy behind the counter deserves some, he had to figure what part you needed and help you find it in the store. Furthermore, every one of those people have a family they have to go home to and put dinner on the table for. But no, our BRILLIANT author has to spend $7 on a part he actually needed, but he felt he had to bitch and moan to us about it. Sorry for the foul language, but I hate people who don’t think and just make quick arguments. Lastly, just one more argument with the class. We talked about Sudan and Darfur and went on about how terrible it was. I 100% agree with this argument. What drives me nuts is when people argue that we didn’t get involved and we need to next time. Well, Iraq wasn’t exactly a genocide, but we did get involved and people were furious. Double standards anyone?
This week’s discussion was interesting in the way we all talked about corporations in our own way and not all of it being bad. Culture Jam is proving to be a much better read for this class, especially compared to A Sand County Almanac. I think Lasn is a bit to extreme in his dislike of cooperate America, but it is relatable. This country is the primary example of over consumption while other undeveloped countries criticize our life styles or even try to copy it. In Mexico, where I am also from, there are a lot of knock off cooperate products and commercials that copy American brands. I especially remember the “Chi, Chi, Chi, Chia” and the McDonald’s popping up every where and being considered a high class restaurant. From Nike to Coca Cola, they were all in Mexico because Americans had them. I never thought these products were that great or even unique having been living in the United States, while my cousins did. It’s good how we all have experienced different influences from corporations and want to fit it. Sharing our experiences are important, remembering the cereals we wanted as kids because of the toys or the corny commercials we all were familiar with is good recollection to reflect on. I liked talking about the food labels we all bought as kids, which I never thought about before as being part of consumption to fit in. The Cool Aid, Count Chocula cereal, Gushers, and Lunchables we all grew up around during elementary school is weird when you think about it, all of us wanting the same things without realizing it. Kids today are still buying certain foods to fit in; the products are just different or have new idols on them that we did not have when we were kids, such as Go Gurt and Hannah Montana. My brother, who is ten years younger than me, and his friends are in a bigger hurry to consume and buy more things today than me and my friends were at that age. During discussion I enjoyed talking about Hot Topic and the gothic style it has managed to change from its original purpose. We also talked about Forever 21, Abercrombie, and American Eagle and how they all sold their products with different music and smells. It was interesting to see which classmates hated what stores and why and how others liked one store over another, proving the power corporations have over our lives. We really do care about brads and shopping and we are right in questioning the morality in that. I think I have defiantly consumed less as I have gotten older or made wiser choices in what I buy. As for Amy Stein’s photography, the theme she has of people stranded, domestication, and Halloween are fun. Most of her images are bright and capture ordinary people and kids in normal life. I especially liked the one with the little girl hiding her arms inside of her shirt and my favorite section was “Women and Guns”. The expression on every woman’s face is unforgettable with distinction in each one of her eyes.
Amy Stein’s photography seems almost too normal. There isn’t really anything out of the ordinary about them, until you realize that finding them ‘ordinary’ is what makes them so surreal. We are so used to these kinds of unnatural interactions with nature that they no longer seem out of place. The first picture of the deer in the median of a freeway really stuck out for me. Everyday we see these little patches nature left over from our hostile takeover of the land, and we think nothing of it. We KNOW that our way of life has restricted nature and taken away from their grazing fields and hunting lands, and yet we still get annoyed and angry when they come digging in our trash and get too close to our houses. This land was once theirs and they are simply trying to survive on the small allowance of land that we have left them. As I looked through the rest of the photos in the series, I found myself torn at times. It was hard to tell which looked more out of place, the animals roaming around the houses or the inorganic human structures sitting out in the middle of nature. We invade natural spaces and then construct brick houses and metal fences to keep nature and animals off of the land they once inhabited. This has also created a new type of interaction between animals and humans. Human developments took away land from animals, but also gave them a new source of food: human food. Scavengers flourish in man made areas, picking up the bits of trash that we leave behind. Animals are taking over a different type of habitat now. Instead of sticking to the beach, seagulls now also thrive in parking lots at malls. Bears are attracted by a human presence because they now associate humans with food. Only the future can tell how detrimental this will eventually become.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the work of Amy Stein. Each project felt relatable but for different reasons. Her work on “stranded” pulled one specific memory of mine to the surface. A few years back my mother stopped to help a car who had place a walker to the side of it when they broke down. My brother and I were in the car with her. I could see a younger woman and an elderly man. My mother called triple A, and gave them gas money as they had none. The whole time was an uneasy experience, mostly because of preconceptions I had about stopping for strangers. But like Amy Stein’s experience this was both mine and the couples (it turned out they were married) was a break from the norm. Our lives were completely different but they were tied together by this breakdown and Amy Stein’s idea of “American Destiny.” We were both just trying to get where we needed to be.
Her “Halloween in Harlem” project reminds me of the photos of Diane Arbus. In some ways I want to disregard this association. Children in costumes should not be compared to the hospital patients or the colorful characters she found. I think both projects are brought together in some ways by composition. But another way is the raw quality of both. Diane Arbus’ are filled with raw emotion of the subject while Stein’s photos have an environment that feels raw and gritty compared to the cute costuming of the children. On a personal note, I really wish she would’ve provided project statements for the last two projects. I think the first two statements do a good job of explaining her ideas.
The “Domesticated” series is the one that was obviously pulled for the class. It made sense to me that she called them “dioramas.” I am currently in a class about museums. The idea of dioramas often comes into play because often they are misguided in what they portray. Some museums use them to depict cultures that are still vibrantly alive. To see a culture in a diorama, however, gives it a feeling that these people are extinct or the culture is gone. With this series it is obvious that we are witnessing something that may not ever happen in our day and age. We have become more and more detached from nature. While some people pick up on the mental idea of that, she plays into how physically detached we are from nature. Now, even in Ann Arbor, when a squirrel comes up to a open hand it is a gift from god. I personally believe that we should be more comfortable with that idea than being surrounded with soot and smog. To see these animals in places humans habituate more is them trying to claim back what little nature they can find.
I thought that Amy Stein’s photography was great. She definitely accurately portrays the relationship between people and animals nowadays. I particularly enjoyed her project “domesticated”. The situations she depicts are very typical of human-animal interaction. I myself have actually experienced a lot of these, such as the deer outside the house, coyotes in the yard, and saving birds. I think she is making a comment on how we have taken over these animals’ homes. We have intruded so much that they are now placed in settings where they obviously do not belong, like the bear standing just outside the pool. I am not saying that these animals are domesticated, but they are definitely desensitized to human presence and there is something sad about that to me. I don’t like that we have become so familiar to these wild creatures. I feel like we’ve upset a balance and that it simply is not supposed to be this way. Then again, if you think about it, we are simply animals too, so why shouldn’t other species be comfortable around us? I’ll tell you why; because we are their enemy. They just don’t know because so many of us feed and coax them. And we have become so intrusive that they can no longer avoid us. Strictly compositional, I think her photos are excellent. They are really very pleasing to look at, and the colors in each individual shot are spectacular in my opinion. On top of how well photographed these scenes are, I am amazed by some of the images she is able to catch. She was certainly in the right place at the right time in many cases. For example, the goat standing next to the freeway is a great find, and the picture of the bear with the plastic bag over its head is not only emotionally stirring, but something we don’t normally get to see. Her other photos of people, although not quite as relevant to the class, are also very fine examples of photography and tell a lot about their subjects/subject matter/human nature and culture. This is a photographer whose work I think constitutes everything photography should. In response to the reading for this week, I do not know how I feel about the “spring” section of “Culture Jam”. I found some of it to be a little too radical, just over-the-top. I guess this may be because of my personality-to me subtlety is more influential than some ridiculous publicity stunt. Revolutionists like the situationists tend to turn me away from their causes. Some of their detournment stunts, like the one that occurred in Notre Dame, did not seem to me like anything to be proud of. If you ask me, stooping to the same levels of corporate America, and in some ways worse by insulting people, is not respectable.
I am not surprised the Lasn was in his 20s in the 60s. He just seems like that kind of guy right? He recalls the wonderful idealism of the 60s and wonders what the rest of us did wrong to mess it up. I have to agree with Andrew, this guy needs a reality check for how great the 60s and 70s were. HOWEVER the reason (I think) Lasn is so stuck in that area is because it was truly, inspiring. There was so much change, it spent the world spinning. If you look at fashion, it was completely overturned in the 60s, something which designers have yet to recreate. Civil rights and activist groups exploded on the scene and made great strides. We landed on the moon for crying out loud! So what I think Lasn is asking is what the hell happened? There was all this momentum and then we just went back to our routines. I like what he said about feminism, now its become a group that gets so caught up in special interests that they have actually stopped what ground they were gaining. But what Lasn doesn't seem to grasp, is that its near impossible to keep that level of energy going forever, people get tired of fighting for their ideals. They want evidence that they will get what they want, and when they don't they compromise. Another thing, which I've brought up before but I think it bears repeating, is the problem with the idea of revolution right now. To have an honest to god true revolution, something, whatever it is, needs to be taken out and replaced with something new. Okay, great. But if we aren't trying to create a new country, feed our people, or gain basic human rights, because we're relatively happy, then we don't want to go to all that effort. Because we're content, we've already compromised form the 60s and we want a break. And Lasn rightly wants us to find a way to get back into the mood to revolutionize. Except.. corporations are hindering that inspiration to have a revolution. They tell us buying certain things will be just like the revolutionaries of the 60s and they spout quotes and pictures of woodstock and we feel fulfilled and forget that there is something we are actually supposed to be changing not just consuming. The domesticated pictures were really fantastic. It makes me wonder what she did to get those shots. Did she leave food out, wait, then hop out from behind a tree? I don't know but whatever she did was worth it because they are gorgeous.
Amy Stein’s photographs illustrate the blurred boundaries between and the natural and developed worlds. It is an interesting juxtaposition because the two realms seem so separate when in reality they co-exist, even if the relationship is not one of mutualism or even commensalism. I think it is crucial that we find a way to continue industrial developments with minimal impacts on nature but I’m not sure that is possible. But also I think that’s the point of modern innovations. Normally I think of having a close relationship to nature as being this idealized serene scene, but Stein’s photos depict a much more sinister relationship sometimes in a darkly humorous manner. The images made me feel a tinge of sadness to realize how recklessly we intruded on the regional ecosystems. She really pinpointed the issue in titling the project “domesticated” because, while it was not our intention as a society to tame the animals, interfering with the lifecycles through construction forces the wildlife to adapt. From an artistic point of view I don’t find Steins photographs to be exceptional, but they are still visually appealing and I enjoyed looking at them. He short depth of field draws attention to the subjects and the colors accentuate the absurdity of the situations. The composition isn’t unusual or unique, but that adds to the snapshot-like quality of each image. At first I wondered how Stein was able to capture such rare moments and couldn’t imagine all the waiting that must have been involved, but then I read her artists statement. Although each scene seems happenchance, she carefully arranged each shot to mimic an event that has already occurred. She very successfully captures the situation and I am easily able to imagine the narrative that accompanies each still image. In this case I think the accuracy of each image as it relates to the actual situation is irrelevant. Whether the event transpired exactly as Stein staged it is not important because any of those scenes could have occurred a variety of places and the underlying message, a closer examination of our current relationship to nature, is the key concept. I don’t find the dramatization to be deceitful or manipulative because I have witness similar situations on a regular basis, but what I see doesn’t involve so many large wild animals. Mostly deer, squirrels and rabbits.
I found myself pausing in Culture Jam to read over the section about “memes.” These are catch-phrases, words, often tags that will cloud your head many times. They are caused by the mass amount of advertisement floating through the streets. Kalle Lasn’s suggestion is that we bluntly fight against the corporate “memes.” He would want us to create an anti-market. The only problem I see with a lot of his theories is that he doesn’t often offer a compromise or a definite alternative. He does offer an alternative in the very most basic sense; however, many of his ideas are so far fetched that we need more information to build a practical solution. An anti-market sounds fantastic on paper, but completely unrealistic otherwise. I had the chance to look at some of Amy Stein’s photography. Overall, I was mildly impressed with her photos of nature and humans interacting but was not necessarily taken back by a lot of her other work. When she worked with animals, I felt like there was some meaning behind her photos beyond just being pretty pictures. Most of these animals, though they look posed, are placed into an environment they clearly should not be a part of. The only problem I see with this photography is that it looks far too staged. Both the animals and the humans seem to be placed into these scenarios. Though this may be the case, right now it is very obvious.
Anita Sidler Amy Stein: I felt that Steins work wasn’t that interesting. She only had one artist statement and I didn’t feel that it was that strong. I enjoyed the Halloween one the best, but only because the interesting clash between children dressed up who all seem really unhappy in Harlem. But other than that, I didn’t see an artist statement why she chose these kids, and why she took the photographs. I thought the stranded series was interesting because of all the different types of people. Though, once again, I didn’t see a statement to explain why it is important that she took these photographs. The women with guns, was really just women with guns. And the domesticated series was all photoshopped. All the photographs are taken with nice composition but I feel like it is not enough. Making something in photoshop and to not make it look like it was made in it, it’s really hard. I understand this, but I would at least use almost the same lighting as all the rest of the photograph. Perfecting shadows and all is really hard- so I don’t know what I could add to it. Lecture: We talked about what types of containers cost more… I guess I wonder about milk cartons and its life span. I drink a lot of soymilk and it is the same cardboard like material used to make the container. When I lived in New York, those are recyclable and here I don’t believe it is. Whether one thing is recyclable at the end of its life cycle makes a big difference. I know it is important to know the history of Rawanda, but I’m not sure I understand what its history has to do with the lecture currently. I felt like we jumped from eco topics, then Rawanda, then back to eco topics.
I feel like Amy Stein Photography embodies ADP III, and the direction we should continue to go with in observing our world. Her work is beautiful in its simplicity. It provokes thought and keeps the viewer interested because of the clean images. While I liked Menjivar’s work I prefer simplicity over clutter, and nature over technology. Within Stein’s statement she mentions seeking “a connection with…. The freedom of the natural world, yet we continually try to tame the wild around us…” There is a photo of a woman sitting looking out the window, with birds in a cage next to her. I feel that this is is an embodiment of her “domestication.” Out side of this window there is a birdhouse and all I want to do is yell and tell her to open her windows to breath in the air that she is looking upon, and then open the cages to free the birds. On one hand she yearns for the outside world, but instead of joining it she traps nature with her. I think as a culture we tend to do that. We bring in plants and animals from the “outside” meaning physical outdoors, or other places around the world the keep parts of it with us. We too easily forget all we have to do is open a door and walk to be in a place that want to connect to. There are works of hers that focus on the wild observing us in our own “nature,” I find these the most interesting. We develop and grow everyday, “building” our dreams; animals/nature loose everyday more and more of their nature. The irony is we build our dream home only to sit by a window with our trapped birds staring out at the real nature, the birds real home, and what we continue to chase as an American culture, freedom.
Where to begin? Honestly, it is hard to say, only because this week’s reading of Culture Jam ranges from infuriating to inspiring from one sentence, one word even, to the next. I do understand and agree with various concepts Lasn proposes, but to a varying extent. Indeed, he does make several good points, like when he discusses the “spectacle of modern life” and “mediacy” as opposed to “immediacy.” Instead of partaking firsthand in activities and events, all many of us do is sit around and watch others do things – on the TV, over the internet, in sporting arenas and in the news. I completely agree with that. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good television show as much as the next person, but really, why should I watch others travel and have adventures and lead exciting lives when I could be living that, right here, right now? Another point I think should be discussed is the questioning of daily routine and adopting spontaneity on a regular basis. Though I believe that we do have the power to decide for ourselves, like Lasn, I feel that we often take that power for granted, or forget we have it to begin with. However, he fails to acknowledge several opposing ideas that need considering. For example, yes, spontaneity is great, grand, genuine and all things wonderful; nevertheless, there are and always will be those certain people who prefer a comforting routine over the uncertainty of spontaneity, and for good reason. Routine is a comfort; it allows people to know that even when bad things happen, there is something on this planet that will always be the same, something they can always come back to and know everything is going to be okay. Also, with his spontaneity, Lasn seems to suggest that throwing all sorts of organization, ritual and/or routine out the window is the cure-all for all life’s monotonous problems. Personally I think this is just unreasonable. Yes, routine can lead to apathy and ignorance often, but tradition can be rich and welcoming, acting as magnet for unity and community for many groups of people. Sure, some principles are outdated, but that does not necessarily mean that every human convention needs to be tossed out the window. Lasn’s suggestions just seem too extreme for my taste, and well really, for any sane and reasonable human’s taste. Spontaneity should be adapted, yes, but when I decide to spontaneously run a red light just because I feel like challenging the all-powerful and omniscient traffic system and then get ticketed or worse, get in a car accident, well really, I have no one to blame but myself.
I like the work that Earth artist like Andy Goldsworthy do I think it really shows the beauty that can be found around us and how you can use the materials that can be found all around us. However, in some of the works I didn’t like how the Earth works were changing the Earth. Like Sprial Jetty I think that the piece is really cool looking but it in a way is like look how I changed the Earth to make it look beautiful. Which seems to be the opposite point that the Earth works artist would want to be making. Because then you could argue that any change to the landscape is beautifying it. Like removing a forest to build a Wal-mart. To me if the point of the Earth works is to show people how there is beauty in the natural land it would be better to show it in that state rather then altering it.
ReplyDeleteI think the main reason that we change the landscape so much is that with a growing plant we need to. There are so many people and they all need a place to live and work. I mean imagine if there were no towns? It seems only logical that as people we would build communities being that we are a social species. No only do I find beauty in the natural landscape but I also find beauty in the development. I enjoy just walking around downtown Ann Arbor looking at all the architecture. Being that my father is homebuilder I even find beauty in subdivisions. Yet, I believe that there should be a balance between the developed and the natural environment.
I think that as people we get a certain pleasure in being able to change the Earth in the physical sense. Just like as artists we get pleasure out of making things. By changing the landscape we feel that we’ve proved that we are strong. It’s like look at what I built and the bigger the better it is. I believe that it started as a necessity we needed shelter and now it’s a way for people to prove their power.
This section of culture jam called for major reform of our American culture and perspective from fellow culture jammers. At this point, I do think that cultural reformation is upon us. In order to fully spark this mass mental shift of “cool” Lasn is right in saying that as culture jammers we have to come together. I would say that at this point in time, compared to ten or twenty years ago there are so many more people who have at least become aware of the negative effects our consumer culture. The time truly is ripe to call for a major reformation and reevaluation of cool. However, in order for that to happen groups like ad busters need to become more accessible to the public. This may require more publicity and advertising of groups like these, or education in schools.
ReplyDeleteAnother point that I found particularly engaging was the section where Lasn was talking about our black and white way of viewing the world. I completely agree that we need to regain our strength, individuality and lives and I think that this can start with how we approach education in America. Generally, kids today are being taught facts, answers that are right and wrong, dates, and equations. I’m not arguing the unimportance of these, I think that in order to be successful and a good problem solver you need to understand basic information and history. However, we live in a completely different world today than we did twenty years ago. If we want to know a fact or date we can just go to Google and teach ourselves some new information. Kids today need to learn how to problem solve and think adaptively and independently. This method of teaching will not only help kids be prepared for the new, ever changing future, but it will also help change American way of life.
Andrew Hainen
ReplyDeleteADP III :: James Rotz
Weekly Statement :: Tuesday November 10th, 2009
This week we continued on with Culture Jam, reading the winter section. First off, my opinion of the book: the author is an anti-American who is trying to be this revolutionary by pointing out odd and contorted comparisons. Don’t worry, I am going to cite a few examples.
The first example is on page 59, which he titles “The End of the American Dream”. He defines the American dream as it was seen in the 1950’s, a dreamlike land where we were happy and fit and we saved money and we were just perfect. Then he continues to describe us now as a cult of slobs and people who overuse every resource and are ruining the world. Sorry, but he pretty much put a heavy spin on both views. We all know that the 1950’s weren’t perfect, that there were a lot of screwed up people, and that the happy-green-lawn-sitcom-tv-dinner families didn’t exist. And today we are messed up of course, but we aren’t barbarians, by any means. Essentially, this guy is spinning the way we are just for the sake of his argument – I could argue 100% in the opposite direction if needed to, I could spin examples to make us look great now and horrible in the fifties.
Next example, moving right along: he begins to talk about his car that he had to buy parts for and felt that he was getting ripped off when a part cost $7 when the materials were probably 35 cents. This had “long soured his relationship with the auto industry”. GOOD, no one cares what you think, you’re not buying just materials, you’re buying the thought process that went into that part, the engineering of the piece, the making and creation of it, the material, the distribution, the selling, and loads of other people who were involved. Hell, even the guy behind the counter deserves some, he had to figure what part you needed and help you find it in the store. Furthermore, every one of those people have a family they have to go home to and put dinner on the table for. But no, our BRILLIANT author has to spend $7 on a part he actually needed, but he felt he had to bitch and moan to us about it. Sorry for the foul language, but I hate people who don’t think and just make quick arguments.
Lastly, just one more argument with the class. We talked about Sudan and Darfur and went on about how terrible it was. I 100% agree with this argument. What drives me nuts is when people argue that we didn’t get involved and we need to next time. Well, Iraq wasn’t exactly a genocide, but we did get involved and people were furious. Double standards anyone?
Marian Perez
ReplyDeleteADP III
11/6/09
This week’s discussion was interesting in the way we all talked about corporations in our own way and not all of it being bad. Culture Jam is proving to be a much better read for this class, especially compared to A Sand County Almanac. I think Lasn is a bit to extreme in his dislike of cooperate America, but it is relatable. This country is the primary example of over consumption while other undeveloped countries criticize our life styles or even try to copy it.
In Mexico, where I am also from, there are a lot of knock off cooperate products and commercials that copy American brands. I especially remember the “Chi, Chi, Chi, Chia” and the McDonald’s popping up every where and being considered a high class restaurant. From Nike to Coca Cola, they were all in Mexico because Americans had them. I never thought these products were that great or even unique having been living in the United States, while my cousins did.
It’s good how we all have experienced different influences from corporations and want to fit it. Sharing our experiences are important, remembering the cereals we wanted as kids because of the toys or the corny commercials we all were familiar with is good recollection to reflect on. I liked talking about the food labels we all bought as kids, which I never thought about before as being part of consumption to fit in. The Cool Aid, Count Chocula cereal, Gushers, and Lunchables we all grew up around during elementary school is weird when you think about it, all of us wanting the same things without realizing it. Kids today are still buying certain foods to fit in; the products are just different or have new idols on them that we did not have when we were kids, such as Go Gurt and Hannah Montana. My brother, who is ten years younger than me, and his friends are in a bigger hurry to consume and buy more things today than me and my friends were at that age.
During discussion I enjoyed talking about Hot Topic and the gothic style it has managed to change from its original purpose. We also talked about Forever 21, Abercrombie, and American Eagle and how they all sold their products with different music and smells. It was interesting to see which classmates hated what stores and why and how others liked one store over another, proving the power corporations have over our lives. We really do care about brads and shopping and we are right in questioning the morality in that. I think I have defiantly consumed less as I have gotten older or made wiser choices in what I buy.
As for Amy Stein’s photography, the theme she has of people stranded, domestication, and Halloween are fun. Most of her images are bright and capture ordinary people and kids in normal life. I especially liked the one with the little girl hiding her arms inside of her shirt and my favorite section was “Women and Guns”. The expression on every woman’s face is unforgettable with distinction in each one of her eyes.
Shelby Roback
ReplyDeleteADP III
Amy Stein’s photography seems almost too normal. There isn’t really anything out of the ordinary about them, until you realize that finding them ‘ordinary’ is what makes them so surreal. We are so used to these kinds of unnatural interactions with nature that they no longer seem out of place. The first picture of the deer in the median of a freeway really stuck out for me. Everyday we see these little patches nature left over from our hostile takeover of the land, and we think nothing of it. We KNOW that our way of life has restricted nature and taken away from their grazing fields and hunting lands, and yet we still get annoyed and angry when they come digging in our trash and get too close to our houses. This land was once theirs and they are simply trying to survive on the small allowance of land that we have left them.
As I looked through the rest of the photos in the series, I found myself torn at times. It was hard to tell which looked more out of place, the animals roaming around the houses or the inorganic human structures sitting out in the middle of nature. We invade natural spaces and then construct brick houses and metal fences to keep nature and animals off of the land they once inhabited. This has also created a new type of interaction between animals and humans. Human developments took away land from animals, but also gave them a new source of food: human food. Scavengers flourish in man made areas, picking up the bits of trash that we leave behind. Animals are taking over a different type of habitat now. Instead of sticking to the beach, seagulls now also thrive in parking lots at malls. Bears are attracted by a human presence because they now associate humans with food. Only the future can tell how detrimental this will eventually become.
Dana Pierfelice
ReplyDeleteADP Response 7
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the work of Amy Stein. Each project felt relatable but for different reasons. Her work on “stranded” pulled one specific memory of mine to the surface. A few years back my mother stopped to help a car who had place a walker to the side of it when they broke down. My brother and I were in the car with her. I could see a younger woman and an elderly man. My mother called triple A, and gave them gas money as they had none. The whole time was an uneasy experience, mostly because of preconceptions I had about stopping for strangers. But like Amy Stein’s experience this was both mine and the couples (it turned out they were married) was a break from the norm. Our lives were completely different but they were tied together by this breakdown and Amy Stein’s idea of “American Destiny.” We were both just trying to get where we needed to be.
Her “Halloween in Harlem” project reminds me of the photos of Diane Arbus. In some ways I want to disregard this association. Children in costumes should not be compared to the hospital patients or the colorful characters she found. I think both projects are brought together in some ways by composition. But another way is the raw quality of both. Diane Arbus’ are filled with raw emotion of the subject while Stein’s photos have an environment that feels raw and gritty compared to the cute costuming of the children. On a personal note, I really wish she would’ve provided project statements for the last two projects. I think the first two statements do a good job of explaining her ideas.
The “Domesticated” series is the one that was obviously pulled for the class. It made sense to me that she called them “dioramas.” I am currently in a class about museums. The idea of dioramas often comes into play because often they are misguided in what they portray. Some museums use them to depict cultures that are still vibrantly alive. To see a culture in a diorama, however, gives it a feeling that these people are extinct or the culture is gone. With this series it is obvious that we are witnessing something that may not ever happen in our day and age. We have become more and more detached from nature. While some people pick up on the mental idea of that, she plays into how physically detached we are from nature. Now, even in Ann Arbor, when a squirrel comes up to a open hand it is a gift from god. I personally believe that we should be more comfortable with that idea than being surrounded with soot and smog. To see these animals in places humans habituate more is them trying to claim back what little nature they can find.
Brijit Spencer
ReplyDeleteADP III
11.10.09
I thought that Amy Stein’s photography was great. She definitely accurately portrays the relationship between people and animals nowadays. I particularly enjoyed her project “domesticated”. The situations she depicts are very typical of human-animal interaction. I myself have actually experienced a lot of these, such as the deer outside the house, coyotes in the yard, and saving birds. I think she is making a comment on how we have taken over these animals’ homes. We have intruded so much that they are now placed in settings where they obviously do not belong, like the bear standing just outside the pool. I am not saying that these animals are domesticated, but they are definitely desensitized to human presence and there is something sad about that to me. I don’t like that we have become so familiar to these wild creatures. I feel like we’ve upset a balance and that it simply is not supposed to be this way. Then again, if you think about it, we are simply animals too, so why shouldn’t other species be comfortable around us? I’ll tell you why; because we are their enemy. They just don’t know because so many of us feed and coax them. And we have become so intrusive that they can no longer avoid us. Strictly compositional, I think her photos are excellent. They are really very pleasing to look at, and the colors in each individual shot are spectacular in my opinion. On top of how well photographed these scenes are, I am amazed by some of the images she is able to catch. She was certainly in the right place at the right time in many cases. For example, the goat standing next to the freeway is a great find, and the picture of the bear with the plastic bag over its head is not only emotionally stirring, but something we don’t normally get to see. Her other photos of people, although not quite as relevant to the class, are also very fine examples of photography and tell a lot about their subjects/subject matter/human nature and culture. This is a photographer whose work I think constitutes everything photography should.
In response to the reading for this week, I do not know how I feel about the “spring” section of “Culture Jam”. I found some of it to be a little too radical, just over-the-top. I guess this may be because of my personality-to me subtlety is more influential than some ridiculous publicity stunt. Revolutionists like the situationists tend to turn me away from their causes. Some of their detournment stunts, like the one that occurred in Notre Dame, did not seem to me like anything to be proud of. If you ask me, stooping to the same levels of corporate America, and in some ways worse by insulting people, is not respectable.
I am not surprised the Lasn was in his 20s in the 60s. He just seems like that kind of guy right? He recalls the wonderful idealism of the 60s and wonders what the rest of us did wrong to mess it up. I have to agree with Andrew, this guy needs a reality check for how great the 60s and 70s were. HOWEVER the reason (I think) Lasn is so stuck in that area is because it was truly, inspiring. There was so much change, it spent the world spinning. If you look at fashion, it was completely overturned in the 60s, something which designers have yet to recreate. Civil rights and activist groups exploded on the scene and made great strides. We landed on the moon for crying out loud!
ReplyDeleteSo what I think Lasn is asking is what the hell happened? There was all this momentum and then we just went back to our routines. I like what he said about feminism, now its become a group that gets so caught up in special interests that they have actually stopped what ground they were gaining. But what Lasn doesn't seem to grasp, is that its near impossible to keep that level of energy going forever, people get tired of fighting for their ideals. They want evidence that they will get what they want, and when they don't they compromise.
Another thing, which I've brought up before but I think it bears repeating, is the problem with the idea of revolution right now. To have an honest to god true revolution, something, whatever it is, needs to be taken out and replaced with something new. Okay, great. But if we aren't trying to create a new country, feed our people, or gain basic human rights, because we're relatively happy, then we don't want to go to all that effort. Because we're content, we've already compromised form the 60s and we want a break. And Lasn rightly wants us to find a way to get back into the mood to revolutionize. Except.. corporations are hindering that inspiration to have a revolution. They tell us buying certain things will be just like the revolutionaries of the 60s and they spout quotes and pictures of woodstock and we feel fulfilled and forget that there is something we are actually supposed to be changing not just consuming.
The domesticated pictures were really fantastic. It makes me wonder what she did to get those shots. Did she leave food out, wait, then hop out from behind a tree? I don't know but whatever she did was worth it because they are gorgeous.
Amy Stein’s photographs illustrate the blurred boundaries between and the natural and developed worlds. It is an interesting juxtaposition because the two realms seem so separate when in reality they co-exist, even if the relationship is not one of mutualism or even commensalism. I think it is crucial that we find a way to continue industrial developments with minimal impacts on nature but I’m not sure that is possible. But also I think that’s the point of modern innovations. Normally I think of having a close relationship to nature as being this idealized serene scene, but Stein’s photos depict a much more sinister relationship sometimes in a darkly humorous manner. The images made me feel a tinge of sadness to realize how recklessly we intruded on the regional ecosystems. She really pinpointed the issue in titling the project “domesticated” because, while it was not our intention as a society to tame the animals, interfering with the lifecycles through construction forces the wildlife to adapt.
ReplyDeleteFrom an artistic point of view I don’t find Steins photographs to be exceptional, but they are still visually appealing and I enjoyed looking at them. He short depth of field draws attention to the subjects and the colors accentuate the absurdity of the situations. The composition isn’t unusual or unique, but that adds to the snapshot-like quality of each image. At first I wondered how Stein was able to capture such rare moments and couldn’t imagine all the waiting that must have been involved, but then I read her artists statement. Although each scene seems happenchance, she carefully arranged each shot to mimic an event that has already occurred. She very successfully captures the situation and I am easily able to imagine the narrative that accompanies each still image. In this case I think the accuracy of each image as it relates to the actual situation is irrelevant. Whether the event transpired exactly as Stein staged it is not important because any of those scenes could have occurred a variety of places and the underlying message, a closer examination of our current relationship to nature, is the key concept. I don’t find the dramatization to be deceitful or manipulative because I have witness similar situations on a regular basis, but what I see doesn’t involve so many large wild animals. Mostly deer, squirrels and rabbits.
I found myself pausing in Culture Jam to read over the section about “memes.” These are catch-phrases, words, often tags that will cloud your head many times. They are caused by the mass amount of advertisement floating through the streets. Kalle Lasn’s suggestion is that we bluntly fight against the corporate “memes.” He would want us to create an anti-market. The only problem I see with a lot of his theories is that he doesn’t often offer a compromise or a definite alternative. He does offer an alternative in the very most basic sense; however, many of his ideas are so far fetched that we need more information to build a practical solution. An anti-market sounds fantastic on paper, but completely unrealistic otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI had the chance to look at some of Amy Stein’s photography. Overall, I was mildly impressed with her photos of nature and humans interacting but was not necessarily taken back by a lot of her other work. When she worked with animals, I felt like there was some meaning behind her photos beyond just being pretty pictures. Most of these animals, though they look posed, are placed into an environment they clearly should not be a part of. The only problem I see with this photography is that it looks far too staged. Both the animals and the humans seem to be placed into these scenarios. Though this may be the case, right now it is very obvious.
Anita Sidler
ReplyDeleteAmy Stein:
I felt that Steins work wasn’t that interesting. She only had one artist statement and I didn’t feel that it was that strong. I enjoyed the Halloween one the best, but only because the interesting clash between children dressed up who all seem really unhappy in Harlem. But other than that, I didn’t see an artist statement why she chose these kids, and why she took the photographs. I thought the stranded series was interesting because of all the different types of people. Though, once again, I didn’t see a statement to explain why it is important that she took these photographs. The women with guns, was really just women with guns. And the domesticated series was all photoshopped. All the photographs are taken with nice composition but I feel like it is not enough.
Making something in photoshop and to not make it look like it was made in it, it’s really hard. I understand this, but I would at least use almost the same lighting as all the rest of the photograph. Perfecting shadows and all is really hard- so I don’t know what I could add to it.
Lecture:
We talked about what types of containers cost more… I guess I wonder about milk cartons and its life span. I drink a lot of soymilk and it is the same cardboard like material used to make the container. When I lived in New York, those are recyclable and here I don’t believe it is. Whether one thing is recyclable at the end of its life cycle makes a big difference.
I know it is important to know the history of Rawanda, but I’m not sure I understand what its history has to do with the lecture currently. I felt like we jumped from eco topics, then Rawanda, then back to eco topics.
Amber Harrison
ReplyDelete11/10/2009
I feel like Amy Stein Photography embodies ADP III, and the direction we should continue to go with in observing our world. Her work is beautiful in its simplicity. It provokes thought and keeps the viewer interested because of the clean images. While I liked Menjivar’s work I prefer simplicity over clutter, and nature over technology. Within Stein’s statement she mentions seeking “a connection with…. The freedom of the natural world, yet we continually try to tame the wild around us…” There is a photo of a woman sitting looking out the window, with birds in a cage next to her. I feel that this is is an embodiment of her “domestication.” Out side of this window there is a birdhouse and all I want to do is yell and tell her to open her windows to breath in the air that she is looking upon, and then open the cages to free the birds. On one hand she yearns for the outside world, but instead of joining it she traps nature with her.
I think as a culture we tend to do that. We bring in plants and animals from the “outside” meaning physical outdoors, or other places around the world the keep parts of it with us. We too easily forget all we have to do is open a door and walk to be in a place that want to connect to. There are works of hers that focus on the wild observing us in our own “nature,” I find these the most interesting. We develop and grow everyday, “building” our dreams; animals/nature loose everyday more and more of their nature. The irony is we build our dream home only to sit by a window with our trapped birds staring out at the real nature, the birds real home, and what we continue to chase as an American culture, freedom.
Trisha Previte
ReplyDeleteADP III: James Rotz
Where to begin? Honestly, it is hard to say, only because this week’s reading of Culture Jam ranges from infuriating to inspiring from one sentence, one word even, to the next. I do understand and agree with various concepts Lasn proposes, but to a varying extent. Indeed, he does make several good points, like when he discusses the “spectacle of modern life” and “mediacy” as opposed to “immediacy.” Instead of partaking firsthand in activities and events, all many of us do is sit around and watch others do things – on the TV, over the internet, in sporting arenas and in the news. I completely agree with that. Don’t get me wrong, I love a good television show as much as the next person, but really, why should I watch others travel and have adventures and lead exciting lives when I could be living that, right here, right now?
Another point I think should be discussed is the questioning of daily routine and adopting spontaneity on a regular basis. Though I believe that we do have the power to decide for ourselves, like Lasn, I feel that we often take that power for granted, or forget we have it to begin with. However, he fails to acknowledge several opposing ideas that need considering. For example, yes, spontaneity is great, grand, genuine and all things wonderful; nevertheless, there are and always will be those certain people who prefer a comforting routine over the uncertainty of spontaneity, and for good reason. Routine is a comfort; it allows people to know that even when bad things happen, there is something on this planet that will always be the same, something they can always come back to and know everything is going to be okay. Also, with his spontaneity, Lasn seems to suggest that throwing all sorts of organization, ritual and/or routine out the window is the cure-all for all life’s monotonous problems. Personally I think this is just unreasonable. Yes, routine can lead to apathy and ignorance often, but tradition can be rich and welcoming, acting as magnet for unity and community for many groups of people. Sure, some principles are outdated, but that does not necessarily mean that every human convention needs to be tossed out the window. Lasn’s suggestions just seem too extreme for my taste, and well really, for any sane and reasonable human’s taste. Spontaneity should be adapted, yes, but when I decide to spontaneously run a red light just because I feel like challenging the all-powerful and omniscient traffic system and then get ticketed or worse, get in a car accident, well really, I have no one to blame but myself.