Wednesday, April 11, 2007

On Computational Photography

Computational photography transforms the act of capturing a image via curved lenses, "virtual lenses", "smart flashes", etc. It has been called "the biggest step in photography since the move away from film" and has its roots in robotics, astronomy, and animation technology.

What's so tempting about the medium is that it can allow the lighting in the room, the position of the camera, the point of focus --and even the expressions on people's faces -- to be chosen after the picture was taken. Of course, some of this can be done quite aptly with existing technology, such as Photoshop. But computational photography pushes the envelope on what photography can -- and should -- do.

Obviously, all this manipulative power raises some serious questions about authenticity. Some may argue that photographic images -- whether film-based or digital -- have always departed from reality to some degree. And others say that the goal of computational photography isn't to depart from reality, but to create a closer facsimile of it. Should computational photography be allowed when doing documentary work? Should it be admissable in court?


Source: www.sciencenews.org/articles/20070407/bob8.asp

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

Are Women Underrepresented in Galleries?

The Independent reports that trustees of London's Tate Modern have admitted that the gallery's collection fails to give adequate recognition to female artists and that they need to rectify the gender gap.

Of the 2,914 artists currently represented in the Tate's collection, only 348 - less than 12 per cent - are women. What's more,they say, only two of the 39 major works bought over the past two years were by female artists.

Those who have been overlooked so far include well-known painters Georgia O'Keeffe and Frida Kahlo. Of the better-represented artists, the one most familiar to American audiences might be photographer Cindy Sherman.

The Tate claims that its drive to purchase more works by women is not part of a positive discrimination policy, but rather a correction of past oversights.

Tuesday, April 3, 2007

Feminist Art?

The New York Times recently reviewed an article on a show about "Feminist Art" that is currently on display at the Brooklyn Museum.

I was born as part of a generation that came to maturity after the women who've fought hard for the equality of the sexes. So I honestly don't always have the proper appreciation for their efforts. Being born into a family who raised me to believe that there was nothing I couldn't accomplish, I couldn't comprehend at the time that the rest of the world wasn't the same way. So it shouldn't be much of a surprise that "feminist art" never made as much as a blip onto my radar, either.

In covering the show, the Times article explored "the false idea is that there really is such a thing as feminist art, as opposed to art that intentionally or by osmosis reflects or is influenced by feminist thought." Study some of the exhibit's works closely enough, says the paper, "and your bra (if you’re wearing one) may spontaneously combust".

The show is reportedly heavy in photography and video, curious since some of the strongest women I know paint, draw, and sculpt. Perhaps it's the ability of photography and video to present societal issues like this in all their pretentious ugliness -- and make them look so "real" -- that makes them ideal media for messages of this type.

The reviewer, Roberta Smith, notes that many of the artists "fall back on making art from the thing nearest at hand that separates them from men: their bodies." She wisely notes that " feminism is not of itself an aesthetic value. It is an idea that can assume an organic force in some artists’ work, but others just pay it lip service without much exertion or passion."

Well, I'd like to continue this discussion, but I really need to go iron my apron and bake some cookies...