Rants about digital arts, photography and university.

So, in class today, some people brought up the theme of what should and shouldn’t be portrayed in a photograph, based on how positive or negative it may be towards the people in the photo.

Personally, I think people are way too scared of the way we portray the world and aren’t concerned enough with the reality behind the portrayal.

Basically, we were were being shown Martin Parr’s The Last Resort, a series of photos taken in Britain’s New Brighton, where large crowds amass on warm summer days.  The photographs, in the opinion of a number of students, portrayed the people there in a pretty negative light.  They felt that it wasn’t right for the photographer to present them in this way, especially since they had no idea how the photos would look and probably weren’t consulted about usage rights.

I disagree with this.  If somebody is going to enter the public and present themselves in a certain way, go to certain places or do certain things, they probably aren’t, or shouldn’t be ashamed of what they are doing/look like/where they are.  If they are ashamed, they simply shouldn’t be there, looking that way, doing those things.  In this case, it’s their own problem that they are portrayed in a negative light.  In a case where a person might be forced into such a situation, I think it’s important for the images to be distributed because they expose such situations to society, allowing us to develop an opinion on the matter and do something about it.

Most of us have places where we can be private and do things without the fear of being placed in the public eye.  Those of us that choose to do something we would rather not have exposed should do them in such spaces.  If a person does not have such a space, is it not important for society at large to be made aware of the problem? To develop an opinion, to help to change things so that we all may have at least the most basic of private spaces? If we choose to do something in a public space, why should we be scared of having these things on display to all, rather than to many?

I think it’s just a development in an ever more paranoid society, where everything is a threat and everybody is a potential enemy.  The man behind the counter is overcharging me, the guy at the airport wants to blow me up, the woman at the restaurant is judging me, the one with the iPhone is going to post my photo on Facebook and share it with my boss. Or something? …  It’s all bullshit. Not everybody is going to do something horrible with our image, and we should be prepared to have an ever-growing public identity and not be scared of everything and everybody, and we should maintain our public image in a way that we find acceptable, rather than trying to limit the extent to which it’s distributed.

I don’t know what is the best educational system in the world. I have a friend in Kenya who runs a college and claims that the Japanese system is amongst the most impressive he’s read about.  I, however, don’t know how to classify an educational system.  I do, however, know that everybody has a different learning style.

I don’t know what my learning style is, but I’ve figured out a couple things through my years in the IB system and Concordia University’s system.  I am best at working on creative projects under extreme pressure.  The thrill of having my creative juices -forced- out of me during the last 24 hours available for a project gets me super hyped about the project.  This isn’t to say that I stupidly attempt to create entire projects the night before a project is due, but I might leave a few, significant sections that I know are achievable and I would like to do under pressure for the last couple days.

Essays work nearly the same way, except that I’d rather get working on them a bit earlier than creative work (around 4-5 days ahead) because I’m not the best of writers (but I can type superfast! Hurray!).

There is one thing that I have yet to figure out, though… how to go through readings whilst trying to keep a genuine interest in what I’m reading.  You see, just recently I bought a book for one of my classes. It’s actually a pretty interesting book, and I got into it a couple days after receiving it from Amazon.ca.  At the time, I hadn’t figured out what we were supposed to read from it for the class, and I was really enjoying it.  As soon as one of my classmates told me exactly what I had to read by what date, I suddenly lost all interest.

For some reason, associating a book with a class and having to read it in steps rather than just go through it any way I please, creates a complete and total lack of interest in me.  A book which I was reading on the metro, on the bus, walking, in bed or just sitting down, suddenly seemed to have a magical effect on my eyelids, pulling them down in complete and utter boredom.

I don’t understand.

Or maybe I do? Maybe there are things in my life that require me to do them under complete lack of pressure? maybe.  I feel like it’s also a question of education for the sake of education.  You see, I love educating myself.  I’ve got tons of books about software, photography, philosophy, art and more. I really enjoy reading them.  When I have to read something for the sake of getting it done for school (not at all the same thing as “for the sake of education”) I suddenly feel like it’s a chore.  It’s no longer about gaining knowledge about our world and how it works, but making sure I’ve got information so that I can make some sort of vaguely relevant comment in a classroom environment.

It might have something to do with my attitude about education and it might be something I have to change, but for now I certainly don’t know how.  I just hope my education system does.

I just read about the possibility that the U.S. Congress may pass a bill that would allow for internet censorship.

Read more about it here and here and here.

Isn’t it impressive that a country that claims to be the “land of the free” should even consider passing a bill that could allow for the government, or large companies or anyone with any push to decide what their citizens may or may not see? I think it’s ridiculous.

The idea is to more strictly enforce copyright laws.  On this page, however, they suggest (rightfully so, in my opinion) that passing a bill like this one would be a stepping stone into all sorts of censorship.  I think that would be a huge problem.  Once censorship is allowed for certain legal (and consequently, moral) reasons, it opens the gate for anybody with enough power to enforce their morality upon others through it.

I also want to make another point.  All this business about copyright… it doesn’t make sense to me.  People download cracked software usually because they can’t afford it, or because the can’t justify the cost, relative to the use they are making of the software (personal learning, education, fun).  The point is that the software being downloaded is largely used for personal, non-commercial use, and the people who are using it in this context probably can’t pay for it.  People who are looking for fun software who have no intention to educate themselves about the more expensive, complex software usually have no problem buying cheaper more limited alternatives.  If people are forced to stay away from the sites where they can obtain this software, they will probably just switch to open source alternatives.  This prevents the big commercial players from developing a potential market in that those who downloaded the cracked software are more likely to be future customers.  Also, people using open source software often feel compelled to donate: just look at the millions of dollars Wikipedia is able to raise off donations.  Basically, these software manufacturers may in fact be losing customers and, more importantly by their [obvious] standards, money by eradicating cracked software sites.

An ideal plan might be to provide a free (maybe mildly diluted) version for non-commercial use as some companies are already doing , and maybe even invite some innovation into the process by making some (not necessarily the core) code open to the public, to see where the creative potential of the masses can come up with; all the while, another, paid, license would be available for all commercial applications.  If the fear is that non-commercial licenses will be used for commercial purposes, they should keep in mind that it is much easier to sift through commercial work, looking for appropriate licenses, than to look through all the work being produced with their software.

As for music, people are generally quite loyal to their favorite artists.  If they don’t find the artist particularly worthwhile, the audience won’t bother buying a CD.  If  they do like an artist, then they’re quite likely to support the artist, whenever the funds are available.  If they don’t have the funds, they couldn’t buy the music anyway, so the record companies aren’t losing anything.

In the end it’s a battle of morals.  Some believe that everybody deserves profit from their work, regardless of the context.  Some, such as myself, believe that creators of art/music/software have to have some sort of profit to encourage them and sustain them, but that context plays a part in determining where and when one should be profiting.  Others believe that no one should profit, and that everybody should share everything.  Yet others believe that everything should be shared and should be technically free, but that the users/audience should donate if they deem the product donation-worthy.

I’d love to hear others’ opinions on the subject! Comment and maybe we can have a good discussion.

Free range grain is an installation by the “Critical Art Ensemble” about GM foods.  They have created a setting in which GM foods have neither a positive or negative light shed upon them.  It simply helps bring the issue out into the public.

Specifically, they are shedding light on the question of GM foods entering the European Union and bypassing all the protection they have set up to prevent this from happening.  The EU seems to have very strict guidelines about the labeling of GM foods and the concern is that a lot of their food is imported from US, which apparently doesn’t take quite as much care with the labeling of their GM foods.  At the same time, they seem to be trying to open the eyes of the consumers.  They are showing that if people are truly as concerned as they make themselves out to be, they could test their foods themselves instead of relying on the potentially untrustworthy labeling and testing provided by their countries.  They do this themselves in their installation.

The idea is that regular people can bring their food to the installation to be tested by the Critical Art Ensemble.  They use equipment that is available to most people and are able to test the food within 72 hours.  It’s quite refreshing to see people that aren’t complaining about an issue but just shedding light on it and allowing others to pass their own judgment.

Here is a link to their site: http://www.critical-art.net/FRG.html

The Project.

In one of my classes last week, a few people began discussing the problems with packaging in stores.  They spoke of “clam-shell” packaging, amongst other forms and how the amount of plastic or other materials used, compared to the size of the actual product was ridiculous.  They were suggesting the use of more eco-friendly packaging solutions.  One of their solutions was to bags made of recycled paper, sized specifically for the product.

I, personally, think that wouldn’t work at all.  One of the reasons being that clam-shell packaging was designed not to be incredibly wasteful, but to be strongly discourage theft.  Unfortunately, I doubt small paper bags would have the same effect, and I don’t believe they will soften the conscience of any thieves.

It did get me thinking, though, about how it would be possible to create a system to limit packaging using technology.  Research would have to be done comparing the energy used/emissions/bio friendliness of used resources, but I think it would be very interesting if we could come up with systems to limit the amount of packaging, and potentially completely restructure the way a store functions.

Imagine walking into a store and NOT seeing a bunch of products stacked upon each other, filling aisle upon aisle of walkthrough storage space.  What if there were only one product in the place of each stack, with an identification number, or a card reader of some sort?  That’s how I imagine a store of the future.  It would be a sort of strange combination between shopping online and regular shopping.  You would find the products you like then, using some sort of interface, specify how many you would like then pay for them and pick them up (excessive packaging-free) as you leave.

It’s just a thought, but I’m thinking of turning this into a future project of mine.

So this class, Cart 411, deals with ecosophic “matters of concern”.  Now, we’ve been speaking of the oil sands in Alberta, the BP oil spill and more, but I’ve been wondering “why?” Why are these events actually “matters of concern”?  What if they are just part of the system that is our universe? If we do destroy the world as we know it, or destroy ourselves, does it really matter? What if there are other problems that are the real “matters of concern”, that we aren’t even paying attention to? I’m not quite sure how to phrase it, or exactly what to do with it, but my idea was to consider a greater problem: that of humanity itself.  Sure we can say that we’ve caused all these individual “disasters”, but what if they are just tiny parts of a much larger problem: humanity’s existence? And what if the main “matter of concern” is not in the “disasters” themselves but in our short term perception of our world? In the end, by causing all these “problems”, we may end up wiping ourselves out.  Maybe that’s better for the world? Maybe, regardless of what happens to the earth, none of it is that important? If we consider that we are living on one of an unimaginable number of planets, maybe we can’t even understand the good/bad of what we are doing.

Click here for more discussions on the topic.

So. I’ve enrolled in a photography course at Concordia, and I’m incredibly excited about it. I’ve been doing digital photography for about 5 years (with a dSLR).  About a year and a half ago, I decided I wanted to try out film photography.  I had recently read about the advantages with film’s dynamic range and the differences it displays in the highlights and shadows and I thought it would be a great thing to take advantage of.  Unfortunately, I never really looked into it, until recently.

I was looking through the undergraduate calendar at Concordia to see what classes I could take this semester, when I realized that, having no other constraints, I could finally take one of the photography classes I’d been wanting to enroll in.  So I did.  It turns out it’s colour film photography.

So I bought a Canon TX from my mom’s uncle, with a 50mm 1.8. Later, though, my cousin tells me he’s got a whole kit, he’s willing to sell me (for considerably less than it was worth!).  My cousin’s camera happened to be a Nikon (F65), which was perfect for me, because I knew it would work with the  collection of lenses I’ve already got. So I got that one as well.

The class seems great, as does the prof (Kate Hutchinson). If you’re at Concordia and you’re interested in photography, I recommend checking this class out.  Of course, I might change my mind as the year goes on, but I highly doubt I will.