2/20: The Good Eye

Please post a question on the reading as a comment below. Please post by next week at 5PM (an hour before class).



  1. I think “raquelnadel” is on to something here. Obviously this would cover the AUDIENCING aspect of the reading. How do certain methods or mediums we see an image through, change our opinions about said image. Referencing the example above, a museum might give an image a certain “clout” of power over an image hanging in my home. Also a museum would give an image the power of authenticity or originality, it could also give the creator of said image authority because his or her image is in a museum. Does the venue in which we view an image change its (the image’s) meaning/power/significance? Would it change the image’s compositional interpretation?

    -Max Crowell

  2. To further Max’s and Raquel’s points on the museum and te audiences is a very interesting. But what about new media? With all the technology of today we can vew anything online that we want so this allows us to pretty much view any piece of art in the world but just as Max said does this affect how the image can affect us. Do we need to be right there such as at a museum or what?

  3. Jenks argues that Western Civilization has created a direct relationship between seeing and knowing, however is seeing knowing? Can we derive adequate meaning out of something from our views alone?

  4. How has the development of mass media technology made the auteur theory irrelevant (pg.26)? What role does the authors intended meaning have after it has been lost in mass production and distribution?

  5. The author talks about how different audiences will interpret the same visual images in similar ways (p 32). He then goes on to say how the viewers differences in social identities explains this. What kind of social identities would you say have the biggest impact on how we interpret images? How might the artist take these different social identities of the viewers into consideration when creating the image?

  6. Why might it be significant, and in fact, necessary for some people to use compositional interpretation methods instead of a more analytical approach. What do we learn from a more “what they are” approach, is there something specific that one is able to understand from looking at these visuals in such a way?

  7. how do our surroundings and own personal experiences alter how we perceive visual images? If each of us has a different experience when viewing, how do the messages created get across to all?

    1. I think that our personal experiences seriously alters how we see images. Certain symbols may trigger us to think about past experiences and this can cause someone to have a different interpretation on a picture. I also think that it is a double edged sword because society plays such a significant role in everyones life that it also can be just as much influential. Expected ideas about a specific visual could influence someone’s perception of the image as well. I think that a good visual needs to take all of these factors into consideration and the artist can then use these perception to get a message across. I think how well they get their message across is how you can separates the good images from the bad ones.

  8. In regards to auteur theory (p26), for me there are exceptions where knowing background information on a particular author,director, painter etc. contributes to the viewing experience. For example, if M. Night Shamalan comes out with a new movie, I’m not going to buy a ticket, he hasn’t had a good movie since 6th sense. BUT Quentin Tarantino just recently came out with a new movie (Django Unchained) and I already had a desire to see it b/c I enjoy his over-the-top, sensationalized gory scenes and tangential (seemingly) dialogue. The fingerprints of both directors are evident and ultimately their particular styles influenced what ticket I would buy.

    What is added to the visual experience by knowing the “author” or bluntly is the “author dead” after their work is complete?

  9. With digital technologies we have the ability to view all kinds of famous paintings. Therefore when one sees the actual painting in a museum does the message stay the same as when they saw it using a digital technology or does it change?

  10. The author says that background can play an important role in critiquing and understanding the importance of a certain piece of visual media, but then it also can be ignored because what matters is what the viewer takes away from the piece. Should intent be considered when understanding a piece or is it possible more can be discovered if we look outside of the author’s intentions?

  11. I think Maceymorgan’s point goes along with the idea of expressive content that Rose talks about on page 74.”The ‘mood’ or ‘atmosphere’ of an image is both difficult to explain, often, and also crucial to compositional interpretation as a method… expressive content…describes an image’s expressive content as ‘the combined effect of subject matter and visual form.’ Separate consideration of expressive content is necessary because breaking an image into its component parts- spatial organization, montage, color, content, light and so on- does not necessarily capture the look of an image” (74).
    To me this says that the message changes completely given a specific setting. When an image is seen on a smartphone as opposed to being seen in a gallery the whole look and feel of the image is completely different. There is no special lighting or setting when an image is seen just out in the world. But when it is seen in a museum with all elements being controlled the message is stronger and possibly more of the what artist is trying to convey to the audience.

  12. Rose talks about how we live in an ocularcentric world, I would like to know the semantic relationship between sight and memory and how language figures into that equation. I had another question regarding interpretation. When we interpret an image we are essentially trying to make meaning. How can we contrast that to analyzing the power relations of the image in producing knowledge?

  13. Jussi Parikka writes in “What Is Media Archeology?”: “If several media archeologists have been arguing that one cannot understand modern media culture, the cinematic, attractions and such without turning to how it is conditioned in relation to the physiological body, this new understanding of the software image seems to be arguing that we cannot understand spectacle and attraction with understanding it mathematically” (pp. 35). My question is why do we have to understand modern media mathematically?

  14. technology has influenced/changed the way in which we view media, art, etc,
    how do you think we will progress? Especially with advances such as the Google glasses, which are soon be in the market?
    this video seems relevant

  15. The author brings up the term, SImulacrum, and how photos allow people to “see” things without actually seeing the actual image in person. How will future generations benefit from programs such as photoshop and what is at risk with these new technologies?

  16. Rose argues that convergence “undoes any consistent relation between content and the medium that delivers it, and between the producers and audiences” (36). Do you think that this shift from one medium into many is a positive or negative thing? Similar to the questions above is something lost when images are translated into other mediums? Or is convergence a sign of how powerful or successful a visual can be across many mediums?

  17. When viewing an image what persuades your thoughts more significantly, your mind or society’s mind? Does society cause people perceptions to be significantly changed?

  18. Seeing that the reading emphasized how important visuals are to the Western Society and how important visual culture is to our dominant culture it makes sense that we now equate “seeing” with “knowing”

    Can we attribute the fact that we place such a high importance on science (which is essentially our highest for of “knowing”) to the importance of visual?

  19. With our society being so visual are we persuaded one way based on what we see? Do the more visuals we see of a certain thing persuade us to like it more?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s