Former American President or the Devil Himself

'The word Semiotics comes from the Greek root, seme, as in Semeiotikos, an interpreter of signs. Semiotics as a discipline is simply the analysis of signs or the study of the functioning of sign systems.' - Introducing Semiotics, Paul Cobley and Litza Jansz - 1997




So, the science behind the sign, the essential building blocks of language and communications, what does that mean to us? Here I have a standard image of George Bush but what do you see? A harmless middle aged man or the Devil himself come to haunt the world in his human form brandishing his Satanist hand gesture? It is a well known fact that George Bush is the devil himself. He tried to destroy the world with his greed for oil and world domination but did you actually recognise the hand gesture with its true meaning?

In Italy this hand gesture is aimed as a curse to a man with an unfaithful wife, yet in many other cultures it is used to ward of evil and bad luck. There is very little hint at it being used as a sign of Satan worship yet when you have a man with long hair, a beard, who is sweaty and pumped up on the vibe that is metal music and possibly riding in on his Harley Davidson, people assume he is worshipping the devil, a common misinterpretation. So now when you see this sign, what will it mean to you?

There is so much more I could say about Bush and his relations to the Devil, but I hope this gives you a round about idea of what semiotics is about.

Real Men Don't Cry

What I think strikes me most about Sam Taylor Wood's series 'Crying Men' is something I’ve grown up with as a child, as I guess many of us have, and that is that real men don't cry or portray too much emotion as it is associated with being too feminine, too girly. What I like about this series is that these are men who don't often play a role where the man will cry and it is humbling to see them out of character and out of a comfort zone for many of them. How many times have you seen the likes of James Bond ( Daniel Craig) crying because the ladies said no for a change?

This image from the series has caught my eye because, not only is he a famous British actor but because he alone in this stark room looking right down the lens as if to pierce your heart with his sadness. Most people will avoid eye contact when they cry, to hide the true emotions and reasons but Craig hides nothing.

So how about world known funny man Robin Williams, have you ever seen him look so sad? Not even in Mrs Doubtfire when they tried to takes his children away from his did he look this sad! Yet in contrast to Daniel Craig, Williams looks closed in as if his surroundings are almost hugging him, consoling him in his time of sadness. What i think gets me most about this image is that Williams is well know for being a funny man, not a crying man. Most of his roles are films aimed at kids. I remember his iconic voice in Aladdin by Disney and how happy he makes me feel as the Genie! It is a reality that men do cry when they are alone and think nobody is looking even the worlds hardest and funniest men.

Here is a few more of the images that hit me the most for one reason or another...

The Wonders of Stephen Shore and Vintage Armani

Stephen Shore's Vintage Armani editorial for Amica - a well known Italian fashion magazine is one series of Shore's works that caught my eye. Unlike most of his somewhat deadpan pieces from the 70's of pancakes and armchairs this piece stood out to me visually with his use of long vertical lines and soft colours which create a careful balance between model and the setting. This shot from the editorial has more of a connection between model and location than some of the others in the series as she almost looks like she is part of the background. the link between the model, chimney and lamp post which struck me as odd at first but now I can see that it gives the image more depth on many levels. The distance between Shore and the model makes her stand out less, making her blend more with her setting. It is unfortunate however that we cannot see more of the beautiful lace detailing in the dress which helps to give this piece an air of elegance, including the tiny fluffy dog casually walking across the road.

In this image you can see the same relationship between the model and location as before, by the way that Shore has placed the model at the same angle as the wall as if to finish off the line it creates. The wall and stairs give this image a good range of depth of field like in the first image but she looks less elegant and shorter, she has a somewhat diminished look to her in the casual side of vintage Armani. This image feels less warm with more blues and greens to cool the image but as I am already over the word limit I struggle to find why that is important. Overall, although this series is more recent you can instantly guess at it being by Shore, which is something I couldn't do last year!

Behind the Lens?

We as artists pride ourselves on the creativity we thrust upon the people but what would happen if there was no artist- no creator?  Everyday a person somewhere in the world thinks he or she creates art, and that may be true within the confinements of fine art but in photography do we really create or do we just document life as it is in the now to look back over in the future whilst reminiscing about the past?

Surely in photography we understand that no matter how we try to manipulate the scene or the image we create nothing but a 2D physical piece of evidence of that place, person and time?  So why are we so hung up about those behind the lens, the so called artists?  Why should it matter who took an image when all they are doing is documenting something?  Sure the image may spark a reaction in people, a memory relived, but isn't that the point to create memories in their physical form?

OK so bare with me, I am going somewhere with this.  The photograph should not be defined by who pressed the button but what was captured. My reasoning for this is simple.  There is no man in space pressing a button to record the most awe inspiring images known to mankind – AI (Artificial Intelligence) or as close to it as we can safely get without risking a scenario like The Matrix.  The Hubble Telescope is the 'artist' and has been taking pictures of space for over 20 years. It has documented – not created – some of the most beautiful phenomena in the universe but this is not a person controlling the scene this is the scene controlling the image!

 

Photography as an art - or a way to stroke your ego?

http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/pr1995044a/