The reading from Tuesday was about how people see things. It's kind of obvious once you read about it, but the excerpt noted that "The camera isolated momentary appearances and in so doing destroyed the idea that images were timeless." This gives the idea that images before the camera could only be captured by an artist, which will be biased and personal because it's from the artist's perspective. One might enjoy the image, but it wouldn't be exactly how they would see the view if they were sitting where the artist was. Photography is universal. Anyone can look at a photo and it will be as if the viewer is standing where the photographer was, because the image is realistic.
Thursday in class we were in the mac lab. We started off with a slideshow in which we saw art and tried to describe what we saw. One image I thought was mind boggling was a landscape by Van Gogh. I thought it didn't contain much meaning until Professor Friebele put up the caption, "This is Van Gogh's last painting before he committed suicide." After that the painting looked ominous and I saw much more meaning in the dark color palette and in the crows. We then split up in groups to talk about the reading. My group with Amy and Ashok focused on the quote, "When in love, the sight of the beloved has a completeness which no works and no embrace can match: a completeness which only the act of making lobe can temporarily accommodate." (Page 8) We disagreed with the part that said "no words" can be used. We understand that no words can make someone feel exactly the way you do, but words can and are used to help explain your feelings. People say that no words can describe love, but that's not true. People describe love all the time, and you won't understand if you've never been in love, but those who have will identify with those words and their personal feeling of love will come to them. After that, we listened to (mostly) wordless music and drew on really cool touch-pads? I forget what they're called. But we drew what came to us when hearing the music. I felt that mine got better with each song.
I've decided to do a little research on those who are color blind. I feel a little bad for them because in art, color has meaning, so color-blind people would get from a painting a message that the artist didn't intend.
<<< How scary is this???Being color blind isn't usually that big of a deal, but there are cases that have been fatal. The gene that is defected is for "L-ospin, the protein in the retinal receptors that responds to long wave-lengths of light." I learned that the retina is made up of rods and cones. Rods give us night vision but don't have anything to do with color. Cones aren't that helpful at night, but they help us see color. Cones are sensitive to different pigments, and if the gene coding for the cones are wrong, the person will see the wrong color. Color blindness is something one is born with, and it cannot be corrected, although today there are tinted lenses which can mildly help those who are colorblind.
http://neuro.amygdala.net/2009/10/14/a-cure-for-colour-blindness-in-monkeys-now-they-can-drive/
http://colorvisiontesting.com/color2.htm
http://colorvisiontesting.com/color7.htm#most%20common%20question
No comments:
Post a Comment