supei's Digi-ImagingXperience

As said, that I would be doing another retake for assignment 1 and display the changes made to assignment 5 and final project; and to display my retakes for several other pieces along the way... so here you go, my final pieces according to assignment sequence (excluding cnm action shots):

After the actual shoots, I decided to change the way I portray my concepts and concentrate specifically on objectifying the male bodies the very same way the patriarchal society objectifies the female bodies, and how daily objects are very much masculine. Decided to keep my background empty instead of having scenarios such as the kitchen, to keep my focus on the body and the daily objects.

P.S: Special thanks for my dearest friend, who prefers to be anonymous, for helping me with my project!

So here are the photos and description:

The following series named - an eye for an eye, aim to objectify the men's body, the same way the patriarchal society objectifies and supresses women. The Obscura marks the first of the series, portraying how daily objects such as the television is mascular. Additionally, of course, the television program itself is mascular. Subsequent portraitures also focus on how daily objects can be very masculine and are representative of what is being stereotyped as male (not female). However, when playing with stereotypes, one inevitably reinforces the patriarchal dominant ideologies. Thus, the series ends with a piece named De-construction, in which the very tool used to capture all these images are in itself masculine.

Emphasizing on how the TV and the program are masculine, on how media is very selective that they only portray certain things and not others in a way that supported the patriarchal norms, as such, the image of the program is exaggerated to be the male model himself, suggesting also some kind of narcissism.

The Phallus

Emphasizing on stereotypes of men, and thus the phallus being the first in the row after the broader social context of the media. Using daily object - the phone to represent the phallus...

The Mechanics
Emphasizing on the stereotype of men that they are good with mechanics, with watch representing mechanization

The Brawn
Emphasizing on the stereotype of men that they are physically strong, with fork and knife representing physical strength, playing with associated representation of eating and cutting meat/beef with the utensils

The Solution
Emphasizing on the stereotype of men that they are rational, with the key being the solution to things and hence logic and solutions

De-Construction
By playing with stereotypes, I am also emphasizing on what is typical of females, especially in association with females being emotional (opposite of rationality), bad at mechanics, physically weak etc. Thus, also inevitably reproducing patriarchal norms. To de-construct what I am doing, hence the title of the last piece and capture the tool I use to capture the images into the image itself as part of de-construction.

Class Critique:
- The first photo with the TV seems to be brighter than other objects i the subsequent, perhaps need to adjust the brightness and contrast
- Some of the objects has some tinge of colors/saturation, adjust the rest to match
- Cover the face for the Brawn photo, as the rest the face is also covered
- Also, the knife don't look like a knife, use steak knife with the teeth that could be seen clearly
- The Brawn photo seem to more heavy on the right

Hence, with the critique changes are made to specifically The Obscura and The Brawn. Look out the final pieces in the last blog entry!

What are the ways readers can judge the credibility of an image even in this era of digital manipulation?

- Examine the image by oneself, to check if it has been manipulated
- Google to around to see if there are other versions around, so as to check on hints or possibly of imposition
- Google on the photographer/creator to check on his/her reputation
- Even in the case of photojournalism, images used by credible newspaper/news site, never believe images fully, viewer discretion is always needed

Imagine yourself as a reader representative for a newspaper. What would you tell a reader who complained to you about a picture of a car wreck that was particularly upsetting?

- Apologize that the image made him/her feel that way
- Not intentional to make readers feel disturbed
- Would inform reader from deontological ethics viewpoint
- That it is the duty of the reporter/ newspaper/ editor to report and show the readers what had happened
- Photo choose on a basis that would portray the story the best
- And from utilitarian and ethical altruism viewpoint that it would at the same time serve as a good reminder to others/majority to drive carefully

General comments on Biennale 2008:
- Works are stunning and impressive
- Strongly evoked the feeling of awe especially McCall Anthony's Between You And I ('solid' light piece)
- Impressed by how the works are being presented, the installation, the design of the interior / space to help contribute to the feeling of awe, impressiveness
- Really made me wonder how they were built because of the huge installation especially the architecture, Containart Pavilion, that house the exhibitions
- Amazed by things I never seen of
- An eye opener
- Breathtaking exhibits, with personal favorite piece being Op De Beek, Hans' Location (winter piece)

Successful piece:
McCall Anthony's Between You And I
Anthony's work is a critique of the space of cinema and arguably, conventional cinema/film where it is a passive activity, involving the audiences as only mere onlookers. Thus, he attempts to create film as active by providing opportunities for the audience to interact with film through using 'solid light' film. That is, "a film projection of a line of light given physicality by the haze between the projector and the screen" (Biennale, 2008). His installation is purely a "visceral encounter" where he aims to manipulate the physical experience in terms of audiences' sense of space, bodily experience to evoke emotions.

I was indeed extremely awe by his work even just by stepping into the walkway of the installation. Because it was so dark in the front and I could only feel the light behind move away from me as in proceed into the darkness. I was alone so I was extremely scared, and the moment I got to the end and look into the architectural space, I shocked and amazed by what I saw:

It was still extremely dark and the only sources of light are the two from the ceiling. It was freaking scary to step inside especially when you are alone. The sense of place is lost because of the darkness, you will feel as if the space is infinite. I was indeed sublimed by it. Standing under the light made me feel that the only thing that exists and feels real and is the space around the light and the only interaction one can have is with the light. Yet on the contrary, at the same time I can feel an infinite space outside but the existence is empty and not real if you know what I mean. Haha. And most importantly, because logically you know there is a finite space and not infinite, so the brains and the bodily experience is a complete mismatch. Truly a visceral ride I would say. It gave me goose pimples... And thus, I would say that it is extremely successful in evoking the feelings it want to onto the audiences.












Not-so-successful piece:
Alfredo Juan & Maria Isabel, Aquilizan's Flight
The Aquilizan's work is supposedly a portrayal of "community, reintegration, compassion & collective goals" (Biennale, 2008). Through the installation of thousands of slippers on bamboo poles, walking through the installation is supposedly akin to going through a school of fish because of the shapes of the slippers.

School of fish? More like a forest of bamboos I would say. It was mainly because of the supposed fish being way too high way to feel you are going through a school of fishes. And I would say that the number of bamboos and slippers are extremely impressive BUT when one enter the central promontory site the eye catching focus was on the huge container architecture instead of the 'Flight'. And most importantly, more than half of the bamboos were blocked by the architecture. It was only when I was reading at the description did I realized that there are much more at the back. It's really a pity. And arguably, the sense of "community, reintegration, compassion & collective goals" is only true if one reads the background of the installation, for the slippers are from the prisoners and the installation is put up by the yellow ribbon, if otherwise, one would not comprehend the feeling of "community, reintegration, compassion & collective goals" at all. Thus, it seems to me that the installation is not as successful in terms of it not considering the space and environment around it i.e. presence of the container building.








Comments on presentation methods:
Despite the disappointing installation of the 'Flight', the presentation of the installations were stunning on the whole. The installations inside the 'Containart Pavilion' is well thought out as each installation is given their private close up space, and within in each space for installation the space is in itself carefully planned. For instance the piece on 'Manas (Utopian City)', the wooden artwork is circular in shape and impressively, the whole architectural space was circular too and in 'layers' in the sense that at the very first door one have to walk through a circular walkway to see the first set of artwork, and the main artwork is at the core. In order words it's like a labyrinth, just much simplier. Likewise as mentioned earlier, 'Between You And I' also made great use of archaeology to aid in its display. Additionally, the use of space in terms of height by the piece really enlarged the size of space, already in itself subliming the audiences. Lastly, my favorite piece, 'Location', was created with a long tunnel, as if entering into another world and indeed, I entered into a snowy palace and experience the sight of snow. A pity though, that it did not feel like snow...