While I was watching episode 6, I was thinking what is really considered noise?, who defines noise? Sometimes there is things that could be satisfying for some people, but for others it could be annoying. For example some people can’t stand people who chew noisy or people who sip their soup from the scoop. Some people get anxious with sounds like pen clicking or nail tipping. While i was listening to Krukowski talk about noise it came to my mind the ASMR (autonomous sensory meridian response) it’s a feeling of tingling and relaxation experienced by some people when they watch certain videos or hear certain sounds. There is a lot of videos of ASMR all over youtube, you can find ASMR of people eating, or people whispering with a soothing voice, people doing calming tasks like brushing their hair, typing, etc.
In my personal experience I really enjoy ASMR, I feel that tingling sensation sometimes and it;s so relaxing, I used to hear it when I was doing homework and it helped me to focus. however I haven’t watched any ASMR videos in a long time.
Hey everybody (: I darkened this video footage a bit as a little test to make this tapping video a bit more sleep-inducing! Let me know if it’s something you…
I was born and raised in Medellin, Colombia. I lived in a house, closer to the park I would hear the bells of the church all the time and on the weekend there was noisy music from the bars and restaurants until midnight. I’ve always been a person difficult to disturb while sleeping, I don’t easily wake up because of noises. I used to take the bus and the metro sometimes, when you get on the bus usually there was a peddler rapping or selling candies so they can get some money, they tend to use the same speech all the time. Sometimes I would go to the center of the city with my mom, immediately you are at the station you could hear people on the street selling things shouting out loud, you could hear crazy people talking nonsense and sellers trying to make you buy something from their store, also you could hear the honks of buses and cars because there was always too much traffic. I often compare the center of my city with the Roosevelt Ave. In my city I liked to go to little concerts, often there were just local bands, and they had like a stand where they sell things like shirts or their albums, but sometimes they brought bands from other countries, one time they brought Papa Roach and the incredible part is that it was free. Definitely it’s not the same listening to a band through a digital device than listening to a band in real life, you feel a great joy while you are singing along with one of your favorite artists, is a moment you will remembrance all your life.
EPISODE 1 – TIME
- Krukowski’s main point about how we experience time in the real world versus in the digital time is that the experiences in the analog world are real, are happening in the moment and you can’t pause it, delete it or try again. We benefit from these conveniences of digital time like communicating with your friends no matter where they are but it comes with a sacrifice, we trade real reactions and face to face talks to texting and latency. Krukowski argues that we give up the opportunity to experience time together in the same instant and therefore we lose the opportunity of sharing our individual timing to one another
- When Krukowsi says that listening has a lot to do with how we navigate space he means that we can have an idea of where we are just by listening to the sounds, each place has sounds characteristics to it for example in a church you will hear bells and a minister giving his sermon. We should be more aware of the sounds that surround us and train our ears to detect where we are without sight.
EPISODE 2 – SPACE
- Jeremiah Moss argues that developers in Astor Place are privatizing public space in a very stealth way. When he says that the city is suffering a hyper gentrification he means that some streets and neighborhoods are being changed slowly, being stealth privatized, he puts the example of Astor Place it’s still a public place but you can see security guards walking around and not skating signs, Moss defines a public place as a place where people can do whatever they want to like make protests or somewhere where people can express themselves without having to follow rules set by private companies. He argues that when you are walking looking at a screen you are creating a private bubble for moving through public space, so you can not realize the encroaching of public spaces, people are not paying attention to the changes in their surroundings.
- In the 1920’s when the cities were starting to modernize, noisy engines, vehicles everywhere, trains and subways running through the cities made it difficult for people who were not used to it. Emily Thompson’s argues that the efforts to control sound in the streets lead to another set of changes to control interior spaces as are concert halls with noise-insulating walls and architecture to reduce reverberation so the people can fully enjoy the concerts without interferences from outside. According to Krukowsi we are using interior sound to create a refugee as in the 1920’s and our digital devices have extended that interior space into the street that mean that with headphones we can listen to whatever we want in any space.
- Sometimes we are not aware of the changing environment, because we are immersed in our devices like phones and earphones, we look at the screen almost all the time and have our earphones all the time avoiding exterior sounds to interference. Hearing helps us to navigate space, certain sounds gives a place characteristics that makes it unique, often in the big cities sounds like sirens, traffic is annoying so people prefer to be listening to music. With electronic devices we create a private bubble for ourselves not letting sounds and public spaces interfere with your thoughts, this leads to not realizing the changes and the elements in a public space.
sorry for posting this late but the first half of the week is busy for me
- According to Berger publicity persuade consumers to spend their money showing them people who have a way of life, a possession or something the consumer would like to have, the purpose of publicity is to convince the consumer that buying certain objects, or acquiring certain service will change their lives. The purpose of publicity is to make people spend money in things that would make them seem richer or feel happier than they really are, even though they are poorer because they spend money in that. Publicity makes people think they could be someone they are not just by buying things.
2. Berger argues that glamour is a new concept that didn’t exist for the aristocratic society because when you born into a predetermined social class, being impossible to overcome poverty the concept of personal envy is a less familiar emotion, so without social envy glamour can’t exist. Berger compare oil paintings and publicity saying that they “share many of the same ideals, all of them related to the principle that you are what you have. Their purpose and their effects, however, are very different”, oil paintings used to show the real life of the owner, showing his wealth and power, publicity is about a way of life that the viewer aspire to have, publicity shows how these possessions could even improve your relationship with people, from your sexual life to your relationship with your family.
3. Publicity plays with the viewer’s mind, making people believe that they are not enough to be enviable, but they can still achieve the dream. One of the dreams Berger talks about is “the dream of a faraway place” in these kind of publicity they show people being and acting so natural with people of other cultures, and in beautiful places so the people can question themselves and think that maybe a trip to somewhere else could change their lives or give meaning to it.
1. Berger argues that being naked is to be oneself without clothes, to be nude is to be seen naked by others this is considered an artistic representation; these differences are significant because being nude is a form of art, when you are nude you are posing for others to see you, but when you are naked you don’t expect someone is seeing you, you are with yourself without any shame so it’s awkward if someone would. I think almost every time in a painting you can identify if the artist painted someone posing (nude) or if the artist had the intention to paint someone naked, this can be recognized in the attitudes the body takes when is posing, or the sensation of vulnerability the painting conveys when someone is painted naked.
Since the history of Adan and Eva, women were associated with sinfulness and desire. According to Berger, western works of art have defined women as the object to see and judge, and men seen superior and stronger than woman; the nudes being depicted for men consumption only. These paintings were like a beauty contest, and the prize of the winner was to be owned, this puts beauty as a synonym of money. Sometimes in the picture the woman was with a men lover, but she does not reply to his sexuality, because she is arranged for the spectator. Women in the European oil paintings have to be shown like they don’t have any interest as Berger said “they have to feed an appetite not to have any of their own” this is one clear example of how these depictions influenced the sexual role of the woman in society because for a long time the woman was not supposed to have any desire, it was not a characteristic of a woman, while for the men was normal to have sometimes a violent appetite towards women.
3. Berger argues that men put a mirror in a woman’s hand and that is a sign of vanity when they paint that woman for their own pleasure, all these paintings infer that a woman’s beauty is defined by men. These conventions are created to fulfill the expectations of the male. The female gaze is staring at the viewer, making him feel as he owns her gaze. Today, in magazines we can see how female gaze is also towards the viewer, looking at him looking at her, kind of hypnotizing him. idealizing women have been systematically affecting women’s life for a long time for example that woman have to be coy and women their bodies have to be curvy.
When Berger said that the faces of paintings become messages, he meant that a face could transmit so much feeling and make you think what is happening in the painting. These memes convey their message with the characters in the painting having a conversation, this conversation is based on the faces and the actions that the characters are doing. Usually these conversations are about things of the daily life as studies, love, drama; generally represented in a sarcastic way. Some of them even expose some of the reality of that time.
When I think of memes, I see them as a new way of information that delivers the message in a hilarious form. Some memes are merely funny and that’s it, but many memes contain references which you would have to know to understand the meme this encourages you to investigate the history behind it (this is more likely to happen with history memes though).
I remember that about three years ago in Facebook, there was a spanish musical video created by Christian Flores about the one of the most important paintings in art history: “Las Meninas” made by the Spanish painter Diego Velasquez. With bad orthography, making zoom and the movement in the mouth of the characters in the video the little Margarita keeps asking to Velasquez (who appears in the painting) if she is cute, while Velasquez is telling the tragic and short life of Margarita in a sarcastic way. This is the clear example of how things like videos or memes altering the real meaning of a painting with sounds and dialogues, could be not only funny but informative. I actually still remember the lyrics of the song and probably if I hadn’t seen this video I wouldn’t know anything about “Las Meninas”. Here’s the video, but is in spanish and with bad orthography, so probably many of you won’t understand, sorry ): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il6p2-40-F0
These are some examples of how classical paintings could be turn into memes nowadays
John Berger argues that the process of seeing is not as natural as we tend to believe, all the images we see are arranged by the artists or even for the context in which we see them, he gives the example of perspective when the eye feels the center of what you’re looking at. What you see it’s always influenced by the characteristics of the environment (music, place, things around it) in which you are, and by our background (culture, level of education, experiences); we may not realize it but that can change for complete how we see a painting, for example a kid will not see a painting in the same way an adult see it, the kid might point at physical details of the painting while the adult might try to analyze the painting.
With the invention of the camera the human eye stopped being the only center of the visual world, the paintings that used to be in just one place could be now available for anyone across the world, anytime. People no longer have to go to specific places museums, chapels) to see artworks. He gives the example of when you are in a church, the paintings are part of the building, they were designed for the building, so ‘everything around the image is part of its meaning’, the things around it confirms its meaning; however, when you’re seeing this images in the commodity of your home, surrounded by things you see every day they lost symbolism. According to Berger the most important thing about paintings is that are silent and still, I think he meant that when you go to a place that is focus in artworks that place is set in a way that you could connect with the painting and try to see beyond it. Seeing a painting on a screen could change radically its meaning because we can do different things to alter the image like zooming in on a part of the painting that is supposed to be seen whole, add some music, etc.
Images have become a form of information because they are transmittable, like the news; then he says that the faces of paintings become messages (message being an element of information) and many people try to understand the expressions on these faces. Berger emphasizes that ‘talking with reproductions’ has its pros and cons, the artwork stops being unique to have a lot of meanings based on the mean of communication in which it is put, but also this information about paintings could attract many people who like art to learn more, basically nowadays art is at everyone’s hand.
In the video “The power to Look” by The Art Institute of Chicago the presenter talks about the visual qualities of three artworks, the artist use strategies to make us think more deeply about setting, social position, culture, etc. This connects the artist and the viewer. These three artworks are the Yoruba Crown, “Paris street, rainy day” and the Sherman photo. The Intellectual Standards for Quality are the requirements to evaluate the quality of a scholar work like essays, reports or even a presentation; there are nine standards, but I choose three Clarity, Depth and Breadth.
In the “Yoruba Crown” the presenter expresses with clarity the ethnic of the crown, and the characteristics of the crown like its beaded veil so people don’t feel intimidated by the king’s gaze, also the abstract faces adorning the crown represent the king’s ancestors and the bulging eyes representing the power of the ancestors to see in our world and the supernatural world conveys the deep knowledge about the subject, the birds representing the woman’s support for the community and the king’s wife on the top representing a hierarchy. The content of this presentation covers different aspects in this community like their beliefs and their hierarchy.
In the painting “Paris street, rainy day” by Caillebotte, the presenter said that this painting “was always meant to be seen in an art gallery” by this one could infer that the social class and the resources of this artist makes the painting more sophisticated and maybe more valuable for an art gallery; with access to tools like the camera lucida he achieved to picture in a new way which covers the complexity of the modernization in Paris. When the presenter said “the radiating plan allowed oficials to more easily control the way different social classes interacted” demonstrates a deep knowledge about the social organization in the Parisian modern life at the end of the 19th century, and also she explains how the perspective of the painting puts this upper-class couple in the front plane while the working class is in the background.
And lastly in the Sherman’s photo, at first the presenter gives a briefly introduction about the photographer Cindy Sherman and her work “Always casting herself as a subject, Sherman suggests a range of submissive female roles”, however I would have liked to know why she interpreted submissive females roles, maybe it was a critique of the patriarchy of the time, but we do not know. In “untitled film #92” she arranges the shot so the viewer is looking down at the female from a position of power, but the presenter reminds us that she is the one directing our viewing experience, this considers the breadth of perspectives of this shot.