This series of works is focused around the danger of human vices. Gluttony seems to be a prime target, since many of the items are food (often candy), but also just generic indulgence, with things like soaking in the bathtub.
There are a few possible interpretations. He could be using women to illustrate that women in particular seem to take these things seriously, perhaps to an unnecessary extreme. So this could be viewed as a hyperbole of how many women think about things like eating oreos, gummy bears, etc., and actually be trying to show the absurdity in it all, since it is rather obvious that those sorts of things couldn't possibly kill you in the ways shown in the images.
Alternatively, he could be entirely serious about it all, and by showing the supposed eventual effects of such things (death, either physical or spiritual) at the same time as the cause, he is trying to say that people are moving willingly towards their own slow deaths caused by excess.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Re: Alexander Apóstol's "Residente Pulido"
When I first looked through the images, I didn't notice anything remarkable about them at all. All I saw was a bunch of old buildings, probably warehouses of some sort, and possibly abandoned, due to the poor condition of some of the structures. After hearing the explanation that he removed all the doors and windows, I went back and looked again, and definitely saw them differently.
I think the idea is interesting. To me, it conveys a sense of isolation. Particularly on the ones with window frames or sills still visible, having the actual windows removed, it seems like he's trying to say how people hide themselves or their things away from others. Some of the ones where the edits are less obvious, though, seem to be more of a commentary on the blandness or bleakness of modern cities. The buildings are generally very plain and run down, with a uniform concrete gray, which definitely draws focus to the industrial nature of the environment.
I think the idea is interesting. To me, it conveys a sense of isolation. Particularly on the ones with window frames or sills still visible, having the actual windows removed, it seems like he's trying to say how people hide themselves or their things away from others. Some of the ones where the edits are less obvious, though, seem to be more of a commentary on the blandness or bleakness of modern cities. The buildings are generally very plain and run down, with a uniform concrete gray, which definitely draws focus to the industrial nature of the environment.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Re: Charles Cohen's "Buff"
First of all, I don't think this really qualifies as art. I find the whole thing highly distasteful. Yes, it is obscuring something even worse, but it's still bad enough as it is. Anyway, the implications of subtraction:
- Anonymity
- Lack of individuality
- Expendability/replaceability
- Altered or misdirected focus
- Impersonality
- Purity (because of the pure white - perhaps for the idea as a whole, though not for this application)
- Concealment
- Secrecy
- Emptiness
Monday, September 19, 2011
Is Google Making Us Stupid?
re: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/6868/
While I harbor little love for Google as a company, I must say that easy and rapid access to information does not inherently make us more stupid or less able to focus or process such information. Their stated goal of making a search engine that will allow people to find exactly what they're looking for immediately is admirable, and I think has far more positive applications than negative.
Concerning the author's first main point, I frequently read online, scanning for desired information, skimming from site to site; however, I also find myself frequently engrossed in hours upon hours of focused reading. While it is true that it is generally not books (though it sometimes is), it is still reading on a single subject, so my point is still valid.
As for the internet and easy access to information changing the way people think, that is probably true. Once again, though, I don't think it is necessarily for the worse. Learning to skim material for important pieces is crucial nowadays, and fast reading and the ability to quickly intake various subjects have always been useful skills. As long as people don't skim exclusively, there's no problem, and most people do still sit down and read whole articles and such if they are actually interested. Both before and after I began to use the internet, I would skim articles in newspapers, magazines, or whatever else I happened to be reading, and only actually stop to read a full story if it interested me. I haven't noticed any great change in behavior or thinking, only a shift in how much skimming people do - but that's only because there is so much more to glance through than there was before. People still read full articles under the same sorts of circumstances as they would have before.
So, basically, no. Google isn't making us stupid. It might not be helping much to make us smarter, but it is certainly increasing knowledge, and the changes it promotes in thinking are probably only lateral, rather than actually being any better or worse.
While I harbor little love for Google as a company, I must say that easy and rapid access to information does not inherently make us more stupid or less able to focus or process such information. Their stated goal of making a search engine that will allow people to find exactly what they're looking for immediately is admirable, and I think has far more positive applications than negative.
Concerning the author's first main point, I frequently read online, scanning for desired information, skimming from site to site; however, I also find myself frequently engrossed in hours upon hours of focused reading. While it is true that it is generally not books (though it sometimes is), it is still reading on a single subject, so my point is still valid.
As for the internet and easy access to information changing the way people think, that is probably true. Once again, though, I don't think it is necessarily for the worse. Learning to skim material for important pieces is crucial nowadays, and fast reading and the ability to quickly intake various subjects have always been useful skills. As long as people don't skim exclusively, there's no problem, and most people do still sit down and read whole articles and such if they are actually interested. Both before and after I began to use the internet, I would skim articles in newspapers, magazines, or whatever else I happened to be reading, and only actually stop to read a full story if it interested me. I haven't noticed any great change in behavior or thinking, only a shift in how much skimming people do - but that's only because there is so much more to glance through than there was before. People still read full articles under the same sorts of circumstances as they would have before.
So, basically, no. Google isn't making us stupid. It might not be helping much to make us smarter, but it is certainly increasing knowledge, and the changes it promotes in thinking are probably only lateral, rather than actually being any better or worse.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)