In her article, "On Photography," Susan Sontag discusses points of how people have used the art of photography in the past and how people use it today, how changes in photography has 'claimed our attention.' There were plenty of specific quotes she said that I found intriguing. From the two chapters,two points I'd like to respond on is how Sontag reports 'photographs furnish evidence,' and how in earlier decades, photographs were taken of something containing beauty.
In chapter 1, Sontag states how 'photographs furnish evidence.' By that phrase she meant that we, as people, do not believe everything we hear, but if we see a photograph of it, it seems more realistic or true. I agree because anybody can start a rumor based on their own assumptions and it does not mean that it is technically 'true' or 'false,' but if we were to see a picture of something reported, there is a possibility that the photograph is more accurate information than 'word-of-mouth.' For example, in the entertainment industry, paparazzi take pictures of famous people to show the world everything about that person, whether it is what they are doing, what they have on, or who they are with, and because we see these pictures we believe it as if we were to hear about it on the radio.
In chapter 2, Sontag states that 'in earlier decades, a photographers' aim [was] to photograph something beautiful,' but Edward Steichen photographed a milk bottle to aim at a different type of beauty. If it was not for Steichen for taking a different approach on photographing objects, photography probably would not be as unique as it is today. Beauty is defined differently among people. All things possess beauty in one way or another, it is how the photographer decides to capture it to make it appeal beautiful to all.
Photography is different today. Technology is rising at a faster rate by the days, making things possible and easier than they were when photography first began. Photographs capture so many things; they capture memories, beauty, love, and many other interpretations depending on how the photographer chooses to present it, but as Sontag stated, "being educated by photographs is like being educated by the older, more artisanal images." It is not always what is photographed, but how it is photographed.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
After reading Klein's "No Logo" article, I realized that she had a very strong opinion about how producers publish their brand name products. She provided a lot of insight on the truth behind 'brand name' products. She made points that I found very interesting. I even begin to think about some of the products I choose over brand-names after reading this article.
She writes that her article, "No Logo," is an 'attempt to capture an anticorporate attitude that she sees emerging among many young activists,' and also that her 'book is hinged on a simple hypothesis-as more people discover the brand-name secrets of the global logo web, their outrage will fuel the next big political movement.' I would consider she means that when everyone finally realizes that most 'brand-names' are not as they are portrayed to be, people would consider spending their money on 'non name-brand' products because they would be more satisfactory guaranteed. Another point I found intersting was how she stated that what 'the companies produced were not things but images of their brand-names.'...'Their real work lay not in manufacturing but in marketing,' meaning that most companies are in the business for the money and not the customer satisfaction, although that is what they all promise. Also I think she means that people buy these products because of the status of the 'brand-name', because brand name products are advertised to be better than the non name-brand products,which in all cases is not true i think.
Reading the article, I realize that her points make a lot of sense. Many people buy products because it is "supposed" to be a better product. Many products, such as some non name-brand clothing and food look better and last longer (clothes) and taste better (food) than brand-names, and they cost a lot less. If that's the case, then why do people still like to spend their money on products that's not guaranteeing all of the satisfaction that they can receive more of from non name-brand products?
She writes that her article, "No Logo," is an 'attempt to capture an anticorporate attitude that she sees emerging among many young activists,' and also that her 'book is hinged on a simple hypothesis-as more people discover the brand-name secrets of the global logo web, their outrage will fuel the next big political movement.' I would consider she means that when everyone finally realizes that most 'brand-names' are not as they are portrayed to be, people would consider spending their money on 'non name-brand' products because they would be more satisfactory guaranteed. Another point I found intersting was how she stated that what 'the companies produced were not things but images of their brand-names.'...'Their real work lay not in manufacturing but in marketing,' meaning that most companies are in the business for the money and not the customer satisfaction, although that is what they all promise. Also I think she means that people buy these products because of the status of the 'brand-name', because brand name products are advertised to be better than the non name-brand products,which in all cases is not true i think.
Reading the article, I realize that her points make a lot of sense. Many people buy products because it is "supposed" to be a better product. Many products, such as some non name-brand clothing and food look better and last longer (clothes) and taste better (food) than brand-names, and they cost a lot less. If that's the case, then why do people still like to spend their money on products that's not guaranteeing all of the satisfaction that they can receive more of from non name-brand products?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)