Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Objects have the longest memories of all...
Read the article, "Objects have the longest memories of all," by Teju Cole on Blackboard and comment on it. How do objects and their conditions/situation speak to what has occurred there? Is this an effective way to represent violent conflict? Why/why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I feel objects can be very effective if they are trying to bring up the past. I remember when I was at my grandfathers funeral (we had a open casket funeral for him) I gave him probably the oddest thing you could possibly imagine, the lens cap to my Nikon camera. When my grandfather was sick he let me take photographs of him, was very supportive of me while I was doing so and encouraged me to do my best at what I loved. I look back to that object as a symbol of never giving up what I loved doing the most, to never put down the camera and stop taking pictures.
ReplyDeleteThe one thing that really stood out to me was the question of “What, then, are, we to do with a thrilling photograph that is at the same time an image of pain?” After reading this powerful statement, it made me stop and think about what I would do in this certain situation if I had taken a photograph that was amazing but hard to face at the same time. When I was thinking, I remembered that I experienced this exact moment when I was working on my New York Times photo assignment. Instantly, I was really fascinated by the work of Nancy Borowick as she captured these emotional photographs of her mother’s death. These images were clearly heartbreaking to look at as it followed her mother’s final days, the actual death and even the aftermath. These black and white images were created with beauty and great lighting, as I just couldn’t look away. There was something about these images that stood out to me. Maybe it was because I don’t see these kinds of images on a daily basis. However, when it comes to objects and their conditions/situations and how they speak to what has occurred, I believe it’s the viewer’s decision to make it as personal/nonpersonal and dramatic/nondramatic as it can be. Everyone experiences their life differently as different objects can remind different people of different things. As an artist, we are allowed to create whatever images we would like to create. In the end, it’s up to the viewer to make that powerful connection and spend as much time as they want looking at it.
ReplyDeleteThe article points out that these images of conflicts are presented in the form of entertainment but they are actual pictures of people fighting and suffering but were not able to interpret it in this way. I think that objects can be an effective way to represent violence because we see a broken coffee cup and a blood stain and we know something happened; but we don't know what. This will force us to ask questions and potentially become more aware of whats going on in the world. Although i think the news and their viewers would rather see the more cinematic type images of people to satisfy viewers need to be entertained and give the station better ratings.
ReplyDeleteOne point that this article makes that I found really powerful was when it is stated that images of objects involved in a conflict often show us the aftermath of that event in a way that is not normally done through photographing people. When you see the people involved in these tragedies, it usually is taking place during the conflict. These images are powerful in their own ways, but when you see an images of destroyed buildings, children's toys left abandoned on the streets covered in blood and dirt, and other dramatic images like that, it points more to the fact that although the height of the physical conflicts may have ended, the aftermath of the event is still very alive and well in many people's lives.
ReplyDeleteWhat intrigued me the most was the line "If it is done well, it can move us to think of art and pop culture ("it's just like a movie"), instead of the suffering it depicts." I was surprised that the author would think that successful conflict photography would make people think of movies. Personally, if I saw a conflict/war photograph that looked like it was just taken in the moment and no time was spent composing the photograph, I'd be more upset and outraged about what's going on because of the fact that it doesn't look like a glorified movie.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that objects are a good way to show conflict when you can't actually show the conflict because it has either already occurred or nobody with a camera was present when it happened such as with the abduction the article talked about. The objects show what was left behind and can easily relate to anyone.
I find that in imagery, without the use of objects it gives less room for interpretation and thought. By including objects that people have used, the artist can create a multitude of stories. In the article, Cole describes Ilnitsky's photo of the table, and it raises an abidance of questions without having any human presence. The objects bring about memories to those viewing the image, and therefore the image means something different for each viewer. I feel that this is absolutely an effective way to represent violence because it shows the aftermath. It shows the state that the objects were left in and can point us in the direction of what happened to those objects before they were left behind. We can draw clues and assume what the last thing that happened to the objects were, and although we will not know for sure, our conclusions can sometimes be satisfying enough.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe line I found most interesting was, "Objects, sometimes more powerfully than faces, remind us of what was and no longer is; stillness, in photography, can be more affecting than action." I thought this idea that images of objects are more relatable/powerful than images of people was really fascinating and in a way it makes sense. Objects allow for more interpretation from the viewer than maybe a portrait does, in a sense that we can question maybe the context of the object, the state of the object, and also the memories that are tied along with the object. I think that object photography is just as powerful and important as the highly dramatic photos that we see in the news so often. This is because these objects show the context of the situations in areas of conflict like the highly dramatic ones never could. The high drama photos are usually in the midst of the action, high intensity, and although this is good, like what happened in Baltimore recently, the news is portraying the conflict in Baltimore as severely out of hand when in fact, a majority of the protestors were doing so nonviolently. I think that is why the object photos are important, it adds a different perspective and dynamic of what is going on in these conflict areas that speak to a deeper and more personal emotion.
ReplyDelete