summaries

Natasha Wilkins

12/4/13

Reflection

What relationship can be established between portraits of students, Ted Talks videos about feet, the environment, messages and mediums, and a great plethora of other seemingly unconnected topics? I spoke to Linda about halfway through the semester and inquired as to the focus of the blog and what it was we were supposed to gain from our digital interactions. Her response, “it’s all about light.”

            Light, it’s almost everywhere we go (except the inner dimensions of the dark room) and even in the dark room many people feel uncomfortable and desire to return to light as quickly as possible and leave the darkness behind. My first time in the darkroom attempting to load my film, I struggled to stay calm in the confines of the pitch blackness of the small space, however as the semester wore on, I became more comfortable in the dark and less apprehensive about remaining without light for extended periods of time. Although light was a considerable aspect of the course, there is one topic which I found permeated every single blog post, many of our in class interactions with one another, and was the greatest influence in our photos; perspective.

            Each of us entered into the class with experiences, thoughts, and perceptions unique to us and us alone. We came together with these aspects of our personalities and lives, and with them, began to individually and collectively work toward a common goal of completing the course and either earning or receiving (depending on who you talk to) the highest grade possible. The task set before us was to capture photos and each of us did so utilizing the creative onus crafted by our perspective of the world. At times we sought to capture reality, or reality as we perceived it, which may or may not have been the same reality for others in the class. In doing so, we questioned the concept of reality, wondering if reality exists or if it is a phantom of the firing synapses in our brain, created to provide us with a false sense of control over our lives and environment. As we captured photos of the outdoors, we were challenged to consider if we are the masters of the natural environment, of if we were actually only pawns used by nature to further its own underhanded purposes of surviving by any means necessary. Was our attraction to capture images of nature really our own, or was there some other force at play which captivated our attention, and led us to grass, flowers, and trees? Again, it all comes down to perspective.

            One person may propose that there is no consciousness, and as such we are simply human robots with no free will. Another proposes that we are living conscious creatures, with the ability to think and create of our own free thought. So who is right? Is innovating a use for used plastic bottles in which they provide light in dark places with limited electricity an act of free will, or can it be equated to the action of bacteria wherein they simply react to their environment producing light in order to survive?

            Overall, the main idea I will walk away from this class with is that there is so much we as humans do not know, and about which we hypothesize, and in our ignorance call it fact or reality. As I stated in my first blog post “This reality [of bacteria] is as real as our reality but operates on a micro scale which is beyond our daily perception. This is the same as the reality of light. Light is everywhere and reveals to us a reality that often goes unnoticed in our daily lives, until we stop and notice what the light, has brought to light. It is not until we see the light that we gain a new perception, and begin to interact and engage with what was there all along, but was hidden from our reality.” And in another, “It appears that if the people were building in such patterns, then the mathematical concept of the pattern must have existed in the minds of some people, which constitutes the existence of the concept, even if people of European decent had not yet considered or understood the concept. I think this ties back to perspective in that we see certain things the way in which our society has trained us to view them, and it is extremely hard for us to change our perception even if there is a reality telling us otherwise, staring is straight in the face.”

            We accept as fact that which is presented to us as fact, and rarely question it if never challenged to do so. Within the confines of institutionalized learning, we are trained to view the world through a certain lens, in which science is the dominant force of the world and we are intelligent enough to uncover the inner workings and cause and effect scenarios of the world as we know it, and often, even the world as we don’t know it. In summarizing this class, I pose a question, do you really know what you know or can it only be known that there is the unknown?

Final Essay: What I Take From This Class

Grace Domzalski

Over the course of the semester, we looked at many different links. Some were TED talks and some were just pictures, but there were a few messages that I got from the links as a whole.

The first main idea that I took from it is that not everything is always what it seems. For example, the crocheted organisms or the mathematical pasta were both ideas that seemed not to be too logical at first. But in looking at them more closely, we could see the beauty and intricacy involved in those subjects. We can easily extend that message to the rest of the world. A lot of times, we take things at face value. We accept what society tells us something is and don’t really give it a second thought. If we were to give things a second look, would we find something different? I think we would. I think we could find deeper meaning in things that we’ve taken for granted all of our lives.

Another idea I took away from many of these links is the importance of nature. A great thing is how much we as humans can really learn from nature itself! I loved how there were many problems that we had in our world that nature already had the answers for, such as when the engineers discovered what they had been missing all along.  It really is miraculous how we focus on the beauty of our buildings and other man made creations when the world that we inherited is already full of beauty.

The final big idea I took away from the links is the importance of light in our world. We learned about the paths of the moon, how light can be used to power a house, the importance of light in healing, etc. Light was obviously very important to all of us throughout this entire class. It is the very base of photography. We learned that too much or too little light will inhibit your ability to take a perfect photo. Before this class, I mostly just took pictures using my iPhone. I never considered the importance of light in this except for when I tried to decide whether or not I wanted flash! I now know that light is essential to photography and, even more importantly, light is essential to life. It is at the core of so much of our world and I had always taken it for granted!

At the end of this semester, I can honestly say I learned just as much about life as I did about art and photography itself. One huge thing I take away from this class is that everything is connected! Thanks everyone for a great (and always interesting) semester! Thanks Linda for putting up with all of us!!

Mazin Bokhari Professor Miss Linda 12/11/13

Basic Photography ­ (Awesome Paper on it)

I’m so glad that I don’t have to write a paper that is confined to the standards of the contemporary academics. It would normally be awful to start an “essay” by outright telling the reader what it is about, but in this case, it’s almost necessary. One of Miss Linda’s main goals was to help us connect the ideas of light and darkroom photography to other facets of our life, including other courses we’re taking. I hope to give an interesting take on this, as my first physics class at the University of Illinois was perhaps the most relevant to light, quantum physics (PHYS 214). Quantum physics in the scope of the course is all about waves and the interference of them.
Light, as we all know, is most often referred to as a wave, and as such, was the primary topic of the class in general. In fact, everything is light, as Miss Linda deduced in her comment on the passive solar house. Indeed, “light is energy,” and “everything is energy” as well. Yes, even mass is energy, as Einstein’s famous equation E=mc^2 proclaims. One could put two and two together and say that everything is light. A good example is sound... Light and sound are both forms of energy and both exist in waveforms, so essentially one could be the transduction of the other. The sound waves produced by the sun in link 13 really could just be the light waves transforming their energy into sound waves, which in turn causes the sun to vibrate. Likewise, a light wave could really be just a transduced sound wave. In fact, in Einstein’s experiment of the photoelectric effect (in which he won a Nobel Prize for conducting), Einstein proved that light can

be treated as both a particle and a wave. In turn, everything we think of as a collection of particles (trees, books, you and me, etc) could be thought of as waves as well. Since, then, everything is energy, whether in the direct form of a field or in the form of mass, and everything can be thought of as a particle or a wave, then everything could be thought of as light, which is why I will continue to say that everything is light, and light is everything.
This sort of ties in with the idea of yin and yang in the universe, especially to do with light. The ted talks in link 6a featured speaker Roger van der Heide talking about why light needs darkness. He goes on explaining that each needs the other in order to maintain each’s relevance towards the other. After all, how can one describe light without first experiencing darkness? Miss Linda commented how the entire darkroom photography process involves using opposite mechanisms to manipulate the photograph in the way that we want it (e.g. f­stop and shutter speed are used inversely). She writes, “the entire process is light and dark, dark and light, each reversing itself over and over.” Little did she know that she was describing one of Maxwell’s Equations, a set of equations that completely describe the electromagnetic forces in the
universe. For all of you that do not know, electromagnetic waves are oscillations of electric fields in one plane and magnetic fields in a perpendicular plane. The whole oscillations create a yin and yang, which causes the reversal (or repeating rather) process of light and dark, dark and light. Maxwell's Equations shows how changing (oscillating) magnetic/electric fields will induce the other!!! This is analogous to how light will, so to speak, induce darkness, and vice versa. Everything is connected!
Now, some of these links don’t really focus on the topic of quantum physics as much, so I’d like to start a separate paragraph to make connections to them. Link 2c is basically about the geometries/forms of these pastas and the mathematical equations/formulas concocted to model them. I think that Travis put it best by writing, “the use of natural forms and objects to explain

higher theoretical forms.” The mathematical algorithmic way of expressing these basic pastas can be used in order to model more complex physical forms, not just pastas. I’ve also worked with the same exact program used to model these pastas, Mathematica, both in my Calculus III course last year and for my mathematics/physics publication. I, too, had to make certain types of noodles and pasta “shells.” In order to model the noodles and pastas correctly, I had to find a rough geometric center of the noodle, and then using spherical coordinates, modify the radius of the spherical coordinates in order to entirely map out the shape for each combination of the azimuth and zenith angles. These, of course, were just for simple shapes. The shapes that the scientists were working on required much more complex parameterizations, including combinations of spherical coordinates and cylindrical coordinates, possibly with other changes
of variables in higher dimensions. I think that it’s really cool that I’ve done something that Miss Linda shared with the class. Speaking of natural design, in link 8, Janine Benyus shared a certain methodology (or “mindset” as Travis puts it) for engineering design, which I think is very relevant for me as a student in the College of Engineering at the University of Illinois. What most "engineers" today don't realize is that design is much more than just the implementation of what one has learned. Design is learning a process and being able to create something new, better,
or overall more efficient. Benyus' talk of spatial transposition is basically this idea of taking an idea from one place to a new location (or new implementation of that idea).
Another one of the ideas of the links that Miss Linda provided us with was the idea that the “medium is the message.” Now, I never really entirely understood what this meant, so if I somewhat butcher it, I’m sorry. In my opinion, the phrase, “the medium is the message,” just means that in general, looking at the big picture is much more important than just looking at the minute details of a piece of work overall. I liked Pedro’s comment on link 6ad, “The medium as a message is a basic extension of the artistic process: a series of observations and reciprocation.

Often, artists and observers alike will expense vast amounts of energy in ensuring that the content of their message is delivered as originally imagined. But this transference of exact content is in itself an illusion: an art piece is relative, wholly dependent on the characteristics of the observer.” I just like to think of it in a simpler manner by giving an example: the medium is money (must give Miss Linda credit for this one), and the message is that the universities (the only patrons of the arts left) want to make it... See, the medium itself gives the message that the universities only want functional pieces of art instead of what art is supposed to represent: nothing but what the observer perceives.
Now, I’d like to continue delving into the connection between quantum physics and light and the links Miss Linda posted. The first link about how bacteria communicate (narrated by Bonnie Bassler) was the first of the links that really got me to enjoy the connection between this class, light itself, and quantum physics. It is a quantum concept that light ­ and technically all matter ­ can exist as both a wave and a particle. This somewhat explains the phenomenon of alternate realities of bacteria. It is actually our "unobservation" of light that causes interference (a single photon can interfere with itself by having the uncertainty of existing at more than one place). Similarly, it is our observation of matter, bacteria in this case, that causes it to actually "exist." Natasha actually did a bit of research on diatoms (link 12c) and found out that “the only way to tell that the diatoms are emitting light is to put them in darkness where they will die due to lack of light.” This is actually very cool, and is totally connected with quantum physics. In quantum physics, we believe that the actual act of observation causes changes in physics. It makes things collapse and destroy. For example, measuring the energy of two superposed waves will actually collapse one of the waves. It is the act of observing that causes destruction, which is very similar to the diatoms. By observing whether or not the diatoms are emitting light (a wave!!!), the diatoms themselves must be destroyed.Edith Widder’s “New Crusade” pertaining

to jellyfish also link closely resembles the previous link, explaining how light enables us to detect and perceive objects in the physical world we live in. The quantum concept that the human being can even see light is once again based on the idea that light can exist as both a wave and a particle. The human eye actually forms images through its capturing of light photons (although we do not yet know if the human eye is able to perceive singular photons ­ Professor Kwiat actually unsuccessfully conducted an experiment to find out). The ability for us to perceive depth and clarity is based on the principle of interference, which is mainly a wave concept. Light exists as the yin and yang of wave and particle (as I have already touched on previously) ­ however it cannot exist as both at the same time. (Also, the light of the jellyfish exemplify many topics in quantum physics; however, my knowledge is too feeble to explain these concepts.) More relevant to the art of photography, quantum physics is sometimes too theoretical when considering the art of photography. We would like to think that shining a laser (monochromatic light) at the pinhole would cause a single­slit (aperture) interference pattern, but it in fact does not in the way that we expect. It only gives the general relationship of certain variables of the pinhole, such as exposure angle, pinhole diameter, etc. The theoretical discussion of "what if" is great, but there is nothing better than actually finding out for yourself, which is why the process of pinhole photography is so awesome (there really is no interference pattern).
Side note: After having reviewed my comment for link 4d on the pantheon:
“Yes, Grace, the oculus of the pantheon does let light from the outside inside, but the physical nature of the oculus itself works very differently than the pinhole camera. The pinhole camera was diffraction limited, as I showed in my proof a couple of weeks ago. The oculus does NOT have interference effects and therefore does not have bright spots and dark spots."

I realized that Miss Linda thought I should post the proof, so I will do so in a very basic manner:

(1) Start with the simple equation of phase angle in terms of path difference.
(2) We approximate the path difference as “a,” the length of the single slit.
(3) For the first diffraction minimum of single slit interference, the phase angle is two pi. (4) Use the small angle approximation.
(5) Substitute the phase angle from (3) and the sine of theta (4) into equation (2).
(6) Solve for theta from equation (5).
(7) The factor of 1.22 accounts for the fact that the slit is actually a round hole of diameter “D” instead of a rectangular slit of length “a”.

As you can see, the angle of the diffraction minimum (or the spread of the 0th maximum intensity light) increases when the diameter of the hole in the pinhole camera decreases.
On the bright side, there are many concepts that can be explained with physics:
Link 3b pertaining to the effect of the moon’s path and angle relative to the Earth on the amount of light/exposure on Earth was one of my favorite links.
The moon's path changing the angle of incidence of light on the Earth has a profound impact on photography. Looking at light as a particle, photons would bounce off of the Earth at a much smaller angle (angle of incidence, that is) if the moon were following its summer path. This means that those photons would be much more likely to bounce off of other objects on the Earth, which overall means that more light is "trapped" on the Earth during the summer. This
somewhat makes sense, as it does appear to be brighter during summer nights than on winter nights. This light, of course, is all sourcing from the sun; without it, the moon would not be able to reflect any light at all.
Speaking of the moon, the perception of it by us on Earth as opposed to a view “above” (I chuckle at this because direction is all relative in space. It could be behind as well :p) the Solar System gives us some insight as to how perspective is everything (link 3a). The light and dark sides of the moon are coexisting at all times, and seem to be unchanging when looking at the moon from a Solar System away, but the way we on Earth see it is much different than the way an observer would at a far away inertial reference point above the solar system. The exposure of

light reflected by the moon onto Earth changes as the moon “wanes and waxes.” Going off of the topic of perception, I commented on Clare’s comment for link 7a about spatial recognition systems, “Which is the image, the physical object that you see, the light reflected off of it going into your eyes, or the actual "image" that is transduced? It then begs the question of what is reality and what isn't... As we all know, frequency truly defines the color of light, not wavelength.” This actually ties in with spatial recognition systems, the creation of new imagery with old imagery. I'll go back to quantum physics and try to do some pseudo science. The old images we have already seen can be thought of as a set of photons with certain frequencies and corresponding wavelengths. These new images which are a different set of wavelengths could be superpositions (combinations) of these old waves, causing new memories and images to be mixed with old ones!
Lastly, I would like to end the paper with the comment I posted for Olafur Eliasson’s ted talks, “Playing with Space and Light” (link 3c). I honestly feel that the comment is very insightful and helps push people to try to have a higher order of thinking.
“The whole notion of our reality is perception. Without perception, we would have no consciousness. In fact, consciousness itself is only our perception, which leads to the fact that anything we see, hear, smell, touch, or taste is perceived! We have no idea what is real and what isn't real. The simple fact that our consciousness could be controlled by some higher power (or even an equal might holding our minds in a petri dish) throws everything we truly believe in out of the window. There is no proof of anything if one cannot prove that everything he is experiencing is real.
I was having a conversation with two Christians earlier today about predestination. Of course, their notions of predestination were more symbolic than I am about to describe right

now, but that's beside the point. First off, I explained that I had heard in the past of scientists trying to prove that really we only have the perception of free will. We feel like we can control things, but we really can't. Everything will take place anyways...
This got me thinking... Take a proton and an electron and release them a distance apart from one another. What will happen? They'll move closer to one another. Why? Because an electrostatic/electromagnetic force is acting on both of them. This is one of the four fundamental forces in the universe (as we know it... once again, our knowledge of reality limits our attainment of any "true" truth). The other forces are the gravitational force, the strong force which binds neutrons together, preventing the collapse of every atomic nucleus, and the weak force, which is caused by the absorption or emission of W and Z bosons.
Well, if the entire universe is confined to these laws, then every interaction on Earth follows these laws as well. What does this mean? Well, if our thoughts are really just electrical impulses in the brain, then don't these electrical impulses just happen anyway due to the fundamental forces? There just happens to be an electric field, and that's why an electron goes here or there. What this means is that, in theory, our thoughts will just happen... They're caused by fundamental forces and are already determined before we actually think them (due to the time­dependent nature of the interactions). Really, then, there are two takeaways:
Either this is correct, and every interaction on Earth, both microscopically as protons, neutrons, and electrons, and macroscopically as humans, happens due to fundamental forces; predestination is real; and we have no free­will, or there must be some explanation as to why we have a consciousness and how we can actually control things. (This is, of course, assuming
that our perception of consciousness is actually the way we perceive it, which I've already established is impossible to tell.)

The moral of the story is: perception is everything, but it essentially means nothing.”

Pedro Ribero final essay.

Art functions as a combination of elements into new forms, enabling the audience to perceive the nature of the artist. The artistic and photographic process consisted of three steps: acquiring, constructing, and demonstrating, which allowed the audience to capture the meaning intended by the artist. Various points in the blog allowed one to make these conclusions and to specifically manipulate the many facets of light into a message. It is this message that will eventually allow the medium to be revealed: a greater truth about the portrayer, ending an introspective cycle of recognition.

            The process of acquiring furthermore reveals that light is composed of many different elements instead of a united force, which allows for manipulation based on which elements are emphasized (or not, otherwise). The first day of class demonstrated that light is not a single force, but rather a creation of many different individual elements (in the form of light rays) depending on the spatial orientation of the audience. The representation of the ARC, for example, was highly dependent on the spatial position of the lens, allowing for different contrasts in the brightness, definition, and intensity of the image. Many posts also implied this concept of deconstruction and combination within a picture, such as Haeckel’s visualization of many forms. Haeckel’s characterization of his subjects, in fact, implied a very vigorous sense of repetition of shapes; it can rather be quickly inferred that his subjects according to form and not function. As such, form, in the artistic world, gave the sense of function; it is rather just the sense of rearrangement and combination of these forms that gives one the sense of function. These representations can be simplistic, combining the same element in differential spatial orientations (such as the usage of fractals), or highly complex and irregular, such as in the drawings of Haeckel. In the context of the class, one can then see the importance of observance and placement, of emphasizing certain light rays to idealize and portray a given situation.

            These different patterns are therefore the process of forming an image, of collecting these different patterns into one new form. Various posts pointed to the novel combination of elements toward making one new function. Full’s research, for example, combined various animal foots (such as characteristics from spiders, geckos, and cockroaches) into a more perfect foot, giving rise to novel applications of this body part. This function can also give rise to simpler combinations; by pairing, for example, fungi with different applications, such as medicine and protection of housing. This concept can also be used in a more theoretical manner, such as in the use of iteration and optimization to accelerate the process of improvement in robots or in the intricate mathematical process leading to pasta-like new shapes and figures. In common with all these transformations, however, is the concept of combination and its associated novelty. All of these processes used in some way combinations of existing ideas to form a new portrayal; as such, their novelty was not derived from the creation of new forms, but rather by different placement from current ones.

            However, as mentioned throughout the class, photography (and art, more generally) is in essence an introspective process. More generally, this photographic/artistic process was undertaken to reveal something about the nature of the artist, essentially realizing the concept that the medium is the message. In my own darkroom work, for example, I have noticed my preference for symmetry and for direct portrayal of my subject, which most likely than not stands in the center of the picture. This likely reveals something about my nature, even if done subconsciously. This concept of placement and nature can also be seen in Linda’s own work (such as the portraits posted), emphasizing placements of the subject upon clear physical lines. This likely reveals something about the nature of the artist, which is the medium itself.

            It is clear then, that art can be manipulated into certain ways to provide new meaning to its subjects. Most often, the concept of novelty aligns itself fairly well with the idea of contrast. Burtynsky pictures, for example, illustrate very well this concept of contrast. One of his photographs, for example, illustrates suburban Phoenix, demonstrating a grass-laden housing subdivision and a desert. Both are divided by a road that runs top-bottom on the picture, physically separating the two sides. The image is beautiful, but most important, once again is the placement of the two subjects, which begs the question of how these two clearly different images can appear on a single spot. His message is of course to question us, to beg us to question ourselves in how we allowed these contrasting and devastative worlds to meet. Bulaj’s pictures were much more subdued, but still celebrated this concept of contrast. Her beautiful portraits, for example, highlight the humanity of the people of Afghanistan through dramatic lighting situations. The rapid decrease in lighting around their subjects also reveals a constant fight: a light side, in which their own livelihood exists, and a dark side, damaged by conflict and despair. Her message exists to both humanize and dehumanize Afghans, once again illustrating the concept of contrast. This concept can also take form in even more dramatic forms, such as the complete absence of light in Rauschenberg’s de Kooning’s or the placement of a menacing wolf in front of buildings commonly inhabited by many. In the latter two cases, an almost sarcastic tone exists, highlighting that even the absence of light (or the use of darkness in photography) can bring relevance and elevate a particular work. All these works, furthermore, demonstrate the use of the tangential nature of light to create particular atmospheres based on contrast.

            This technique essentially seeks to challenge the human mind. As seen in various posts, individuals tend to see themselves as particularly knowing of their own self. But, the human mind itself is guided by various forms and marks, as illustrated by the visual spatial recognition of rats and their brain activity. Our darkroom photography, therefore, was a challenge to the concept of the all-knowing self: by utilizing the tangential nature of light, one effectively transformed the audience into the rat, forcing them to navigate through old forms (represented by the subject) in a new spatial format (represented by the new combination of these forms). This format itself is the introspective work of the artist, or the medium as alluded earlier; as such, the photographer and artists essentially transposes his own persona into the canvas, leading the audience by the use of forms. From these conclusions, I keep cycling back and imagining our work as a continuous enumeration of lenses, all staggered from each other. Whenever a light shines, these lenses reflect and demonstrate their own reflection to other lenses. Which lens becomes the photographer (or artist) and which becomes the audience is then irrelevant: they both can be considered to be so, or not at all.

Zach Brewer
Professor Linda Robbennolt ARTD 260 LRH
11 December 2013
In this class we learned about light and used photography to explore it and as a means of expression. We also learned about wet process film development and print making; however, we also responded to and discussed blog posts consisting of videos, articles, and other links. This discussion (and occasionally discussions we had in the darkroom) really taught us to see “beyond the light.” We learned to see things from completely new perspectives and that everything depends on your point of view.

I think that the camera obscura demonstration that we did on the first day of class really sums up what I got from the blog posts. That demonstration blew my mind a little bit. It makes perfect sense that the physics of a pinhole camera still hold when the camera is scaled up to be the size of a room; however, I had never imagined doing that. In fact, I had never really thought about what goes on in a camera and what that would look like. This lesson about the “other universe” inside of the pinhole camera really stuck with me.
To me this is really just talking about different perspectives on the universe and that everything depends on your point of view. In the darkroom, while making prints, we had plenty of time to talk. We didn’t always have insightful conversations (they were probably in the minority) but we did occasionally. In fact, it was really interesting because Mazin typically had a very different perspective on issues than most of the other people in the class. This was interesting because, as I said, the way you see the universe really just depends on your point of view so it seems like the way Mazin sees the universe is completely different than the way I, for example, see it.
One really good example of this is the discussion we had about consciousness and free will. Mazin looked at it in the terms of the physics involved which led him to conclude that nobody has free

Brewer 1

will; however, other people in the class looked at it differently. Some people looked at it in religious terms while others looked at it in terms of their experiences, personal beliefs, and/or feelings. These are all valid points of view but they give each person a unique perspective on life.
Another extremely related discussion that we had was about the way that we perceive things. I believe it started as a discussion about whether or not something was a certain color (let’s say green). The point was made that, while we may all agree that the object was green, there was no way to tell if we were all perceiving green in the same way. It was then mentioned that this was true of everything- there was no way to tell if anyone else perceived anything the same way as anyone else. Once again this hooks into the theme about perspective because each person really lives in their own universe (in a certain sense) and how that universe is perceived depends on the point of view from which it is observed. This is like saying that in each pinhole camera there is a tiny reality but instead of pinhole cameras you have people. Physics itself even works this way. If one were to look at motion relative to me my glasses may not be moving; however, if one were to look at their motion relative to the sun they can be said to be moving quite quickly.
In addition to the in class discussions, most of the blog posts related to this in some way. For example, the recent post about the “song” of the sun shows that from a certain perspective the sun makes a sound. One of my favorite examples of this from the blog was the TED talk talking about how, from the plants’ point of view, we are really working for them. This is because we end up cultivating them and by doing so we are increasing the population size of that particular species, fertilizing the individual plants, and helping them survive and spread their genetic material. As further evidence that all of the blog posts related to this theme of perspective in some way, there have even been blog posts about the brain and how we perceive the world in addition to posts about new ways to think about old problems which is really looking at the old problems from a different perspective.

Brewer 2

Overall, I got a lot out of this class. I really enjoyed learning about photography and having discussions with my classmates; however, I got much more out of the class than that. It really helped to show me that every little thing that you may think that you know looks completely different from a different point of view. Not only did it show me this but it also opened my eyes to the fact that these different perspectives are the reason that we as humans have a rich and diverse culture and have been able to come up with so many innovations over our relatively short time on earth (although this too depends on perspective). If it weren’t for the fact that everything depends on your point of view then everyone would essentially be the same person and there would be no individuality.

Brewer 3

Clare Scheib-Feeley

Ms. Linda Robbennolt

ARTD 260

11 December 2013

Basic Photography Final Paper

Usually when I tell people that I run they are at a loss for words. “I could never do that” they tell me, going on to explain that they would get too tired, too bored if they ran the countless miles that I normally do. I defend myself by simply stating that I love running. However, my internal reaction is quite different. I know that a real runner would never get bored. I read an article about this recently in which a philosopher perfectly describes the three different states of a runner’s mind throughout a run, explaining why runners love their chosen form of physical activity or, if I even may say, form of art. The first stage is the Cartesian phase, in which runners have a separation between mind and body. In this stage the mind tells the body lies and basically coerces it to run along. If one runs long enough they will next experience the Humean phase, in which runners begin to not think but instead simply experience thoughts that come from nowhere. The final level, if the runner gets there, is the Sartrean phase or when the runner is submerged in the run and the “self” is reduced to nothing. By this phase, nothing can really make the runner stop. I identified most with the description of the Humean phase, as I have never run something as long as a marathon. There comes a point within my runs, sometimes after twenty minutes or sometimes after forty minutes, in which my mind and body merge and I forget the physicality of what is going on, instead dwelling in my thoughts. This is the so-called “runners high” I am addicted to, and the reason why the answer to why I run is simply “to run”.

I have been creating my own artwork from about the age of two, when my parents would sit me down and take my scribbles with crayons or splashes of watercolors to make cute little cards for their friends of which they could be proud of. However in my sixteen years as an artist since then I have never come to understand art as I now have through this class. Our class emphasized light, for in utilizing light, the way in which an object is portrayed can be completely changed. Different angles can change the way an object is portrayed, highlights can direct the eye’s attention, an increase in light can create additional information regarding a particular section of a subject, and the list can go on and on.  

In creating all types of artwork, no matter the subject or medium used, the ultimate objective and true beauty is in finding the “light” and thus finding greater knowledge. Light allows for fish to cry for help in the dark depths of the sea, light illuminates the beautiful despair of those in Afghanistan and light can reveal hidden detail on a building, all creating a type of communication between the “artist” and its audience, and producing a flow of information in that way.

What I learned from class discussions and the connection between the links is that the actions made by using the cameras and light meters, developing the film and printing in the dark room, are all simply physical acts. In stressing solely over perfection of a photograph we are in the Cartesian phase of running, where the physical act of the body is separated from the mind. True artwork lies in phases I would relate to the Humean and Satrean phases of running, where the mind and body become one. The importance of the act of physically creating photographs becomes overpowered instead by the thoughts and ideas induced through the physical acts. This is how I understand the “message is the medium” statement, and something I see especially in the Robert Rauschenberg link. In that video it described how Rauschenberg created essentially a blank piece of paper by erasing a de Kooning masterpiece. The public was outraged but clearly missed a major realization. The physicality of the artwork is not the important part nor the reason for creation necessarily, just as the physicality of running is not necessarily the reason most people love to run. The true artwork lies in the thoughts, messages, and feelings created whilst making the artwork. These are the artist’s way of gaining new knowledge and shedding new light on a subject and the public’s interpretation of this. Not all artwork may be considered beautiful, but all pieces of art have somehow or another caused the artists and viewers to think.

Art is about taking things we are used to and looking at it in a different way. Another thing I learned from the class and found consistent amongst the links was the idea that there is no one single reality, as scary as this may seem. Several of the links related to psychology and the brain made it clear that all humans have different brains and the way in which a brain works makes it biologically impossible for any two people to have the same outlook on life or lens from which they see the world. Therefore, everyone has their own reality and art becomes the mean by which one is able to discover new ideas and gain additional knowledge. In presenting a final art piece one is able to express their reality to the rest of the world so that they audience may increase their thoughts or feelings surrounding a particular subject. A perfect example of this is in our photographs from the first critique. While there are clear differences amongst all of the photographs, as seen in the discrepancies between methods of printing and the differentiation in the variety of subjects shot, there is no “right” or “wrong” photograph. I whole-heartedly agree with the idea that because of this they cannot be assigned grades. When all put up next to each other, despite our minimal photography skills in the scheme of things, one is able to get a glimpse into all of our own, differing personal realities, thus hopefully gaining some type of new light or knowledge on the subject or simply life in general.

A final theme I found quite consistent within the class was the idea of learning from nature. If art is about using different lenses to understand different realities, using a lens fully taking nature into account is not the “best” lens, for there is no single optimal lens, but is definitely a smart way of looking at things that gains very reasonable insight and knowledge. Nature and evolution have been at work for billions of years, thus if there is any one thing we can trust in terms of stability, it probably is nature. In fact, nature’s view is probably the closest we can come to one single reality. Therefore, by investigating nature and natural phenomena, humans are able to create the most efficient models and solutions to problems, as seen for example in the green design and biomimicry described in the links. What also comes out of this of use of the lens of nature is the idea that everything is imperfect and that everything is perfect. Imperfections of nature are similar to the differences in realities and because nothing is perfect and there is not one single reality, everything can instead possibly be considered perfect.

This class has changed my outlook on art for the better. I now understand the philosophical side of creating artwork and recognize that, similar to running, art is a way to knowing. In looking for better light, whether it be literally or physically, we are constantly gaining knowledge that improves our own lives and hopefully betters the lives of others as well.  And in creating artwork, the goal is always simple: to create.

Travis Smith

ARTD260

            This class has made me consider light in ways that no other studio course has before. Although light is an important aspect of creating any kind of artwork, photography is especially sensitive to it, not only because of composition but since light is vital to every step of the process when creating a photographic work. This class reinforced the value of patience, conserving materials, and working smart instead of hard. The trial and error involved with creating a few of my earliest pieces took an infuriating amount of time and I was less conscious of conserving my contact paper in the beginning. Experimenting and hoping it turned out close to correct is a bad way of doing things if you’re just doing it to try and shave time off a print. I’m all for experimentation, as long as something is being learned from it. The time-intensive trial and error process taught me a lot and allowed me to plan more accordingly when printing pieces in the second half of the semester. The satisfaction of printing something correctly after investing several frustrating hours is a very good feeling.

The links on the blog were a mixed bag of information for me. Many times, I could see how they could be related to light but I would be prompted to think about something other than light and be more nourished by those thoughts. That being said, the links were all interesting in different ways. TED talks are always fun to view but especially when they can be tied to something I’m personally invested in, like art-making.

            This class has also made me consider myself as a person through the subject matter I photographed. You had mentioned in our mid-semester critique that by looking at the photographs of someone you could see what they placed value on. This really struck me and I spent a lot of time reflecting upon it. I noticed that a large number of my photographs were devoid of people. That’s not to say I didn’t photograph my friends, but most of the good photos were still-life shots. I found validation in my photos that I valued being alone sometimes more than I valued being around people, yet some of the photos I took were sad. I found myself feeling lonely while looking at some of my own pieces. After that moment, I made attempts to create work that didn’t bum me out. I started photographing more people. I don’t want to have a body of work that depresses me. This class has taught me the value of reflecting inwardly after creating pieces of artwork to explore your own self.