Follow me on Mastodon:
@adcoleman@hcommons.social
 
 
|
I hasten to point out a fundamental conceptual error that Bennett and his colleagues have made, as exemplified by this last statement. Their subject, said dead salmon, was not “perceiving humans.” It was perceiving photographs of humans. The relationship between a photograph of a thing and the thing itself is indexical at best, and fraught with complexities and qualifications. Clearly Bennett et al need to read more theory of photography. On a positive note, Bennett and his group also scanned a pumpkin and a Cornish hen (both certifiably deceased) with no resulting critical commentary. What a relief. . . . […]
I began to develop an idea for an exhibition to focus on, or “foreground,” hand-painted backdrops from around the world used by itinerant and studio photographers in their portrait work. In addition, the photographs made by these photographers were to be displayed along with the backdrops. When I was coordinating the Exhibitions Program at Visual Studies Workshop (1987-1997) I was provided the freedom and encouragement to develop this idea. I began to more thoroughly research what I perceived to be a global, pervasive, but somewhat overlooked phenomenon in the history of photography; and the project grew and evolved. […]
If I had not have the support of the lab people at Polaroid I never would have been able to work as a fine-art photographer. I simply did not make enough money to work without that support. I remember dancing with joy when a package of film arrived in the mail. Sometimes they would send me a case of it at the end of the year when they had extra. These were not the heads of the art sections or the big advertising gurus who were in any way helping me. These were the guys in the labs who liked what I was doing and decided to support someone who was working at the edge of possibility using their material to do that. […]
The Polaroid Corporation gave away tons (literally) of free film to teachers, particularly those teaching kids in K-12 programs in schools and in after-school/alternative programs. The company also lent and often donated cameras (especially SX-70s) to such programs. They offered workshops for K-12 teachers in how to use photography (and especially instant photography) in teaching different subject areas within their curricula. They published a substantial workbook filled with ideas and assignments. . . . […]
We talk so much about what we’ve lost as a consequence of the shift from analog to digital in photography and the other lens-based media — almost exclusively it’s the down side that preoccupies us in that conversation. We need to balance that with thoughtful consideration of the benefits. This car crash in front of our house and its aftermath (including this post) represent the most trivial examples. But our record of it, and this internationally available communication about it, exist due to exactly the same cluster of enabling technologies as the one now driving Iran toward reconfiguration as a more open society. . . . […]
|
SPJ Research Award 2014
Thought for the Day Ignorance is a condition; dumbness is a commitment.
Copyright Notice All content of this publication is © copyright 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 by A. D. Coleman unless otherwise noted. All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced for commercial purposes without prior written permission. All photos copyright by the individual photographers. "Fair use" allows quotation of excerpts of textual material from this site for educational and other noncommercial purposes.
Published by Flying Dragon LLC.
Neither A. D. Coleman nor Flying Dragon LLC are responsible for the content of external Internet sites to which this blog links.
|
Fish Story
I hasten to point out a fundamental conceptual error that Bennett and his colleagues have made, as exemplified by this last statement. Their subject, said dead salmon, was not “perceiving humans.” It was perceiving photographs of humans. The relationship between a photograph of a thing and the thing itself is indexical at best, and fraught with complexities and qualifications. Clearly Bennett et al need to read more theory of photography. On a positive note, Bennett and his group also scanned a pumpkin and a Cornish hen (both certifiably deceased) with no resulting critical commentary. What a relief. . . . […]