Response Again
I think that ads are a great way to get someones attention. Although this article targets ads as the devils advocate (do you see what I did there?) they definitely play their part in modern day consumerism. Obviously several of the author’s points are fact, but they’re also highly biased, using tones and words that help make the reader feel victimized. The internet isn’t victimizing anyone! Ads and the internet are used as a TOOL for marketers to use, much as they would in the “real” (non-cyber) world. If the internet offers it, I think it’s fair game. To develop a system such as AdSense is really nothing too surprising or huge, it uses what already comes with the internet to target customers. Consumerism and marketing is a huge part of our world, it is how we communicate our desires and trends in the modern era. I think without ads, people wouldn’t be able to access all of the items that they sometimes need. It is no different than going to a store and not finding what you need so you order something else.
Overall, I think that the author goes a little over the top with his victimization of the average Internet user, and creates a dividing line of programmers and developers as the evil ones, and the users as the poor innocent good ones. Everyone is aware of what’s happening, and there is nothing extremely wrong going on, so I think of it as everyone is working together on the “buying” and “selling” front, just in a more accessible way.
The Internet is good!
Click Here to Disappear Response
The contents of this essay directly refer to the behaviors of society during the “Digital Age.” I believe it has an important message about the evolution of attitude towards images; the supposed and the real.
The article states how the invention of the Internet is the main culprit of the attitude towards images. The more intake the less time it takes to process an image, and then the image is forgotten. Oftentimes the case is in modern days that people are glued to their screens, taking in picture after picture in milliseconds. The goal is this: How many images can I take in today?
Supposedly, the theory is that the more images that one sees the more analytical one would be towards what is a good image or not, creating more of an educated basis of people on the subject of photography. However we know this is not the case. For instance take in social websites including Facebook and Myspace. Thousands upon thousands of images are uploaded each day as a network for everyone to see. The more pictures we see, the more we being to see a picture not as an artistic tool of expression, but rather a tool to use to take a snapshot of one moment. The art of photography is lost as people begin to use it as a tool for memory.
I think that this endangers the art of photography, because people begin to not cherish it as a form of talent and skill. The attention span of people in the information age is shortening, and analyzing an image may take too long for anyone to want to spend time on.
Ofer Wolberger - Exhibition at Virginia Intermont College
Ofer Wolberger presents us with some very interesting ideas and images. Although I personally did not agree with them, he shares enthusiasm and happiness in his work and ultimately that is all I believe that matters.
Some of Wolberger’s books make me think about what art is and what can be classified as art. Although there is no denying that Wolberger is an artist, I don’t necessarily believe that some of his books classify as art. Specifically books such as New Breed, Fractures, and Covers. Although I do like his selection of images presented in the books, I believe that they are more published 2-D versions of collections or museums. I don’t particularly agree with his re-publishing of these images. They’re more for collection purposes I think rather than artistic purposes. Although Wolberger presents his books in an artistic manner, I think that since it is not his original work in the books that they come across as more of a portable version of his collections. I do not doubt it though - I rather like Covers and Fractions. Covers is interesting to me because of its unplanned poetic sense of book covers. At the same time though, I wonder if this is just a figment of the mind putting these book covers together as a poetic phrase because we look for patterns in our daily lives. There must always be meaning - but Wolberger presents us with the idea: Does art have to have a meaning? Personally, I think they do, otherwise the piece seems empty to me. His collections are indeed beautiful (to him mostly,) and I feel like several of his publications are more for personal interest rather than artist promotion.
His personal work however I adored. I loved the idea behind his book Visitors where he plays with the idea of miniscule photography and the model being the watcher. The model is consistently his wife, who I think has a very interesting gaze at the camera in each image. Sometimes it looks condescending, and other times like we see her at a glimpse.
However the series I enjoyed most from Wolberger was Life with Maggie, where stereotypical “tourist shots” are taken from around the world with a woman wearing a mask that displays a strange and grotesque image. I really like this idea, it ranges from classic vintage shots to modern shots, using the same woman each time. This way Wolberger can play with the idea of what is a tourist? How is society depicting itself? (At the same time as traveling the world - I’m jealous!) Below are a few shots from Life with Maggie.
I like all of Wolberger’s choices of location - they match Maggie in a very coordinated way.
Like many others, I really enjoyed his architectural work as well, but that’s nothing that no one has recognized. I was very impressed to see that he had been published by Life magazine as well as Newsweek! Very deserving, in my opinion.
