Result on DPP

Letter received today saying that I had passed. 2 down 5 to go!.

DPP Assignment 5 - Tutors response

Positive feedback on the final assignment and have sent everything off for assessment. Time of crossed fingers and hope.

I am now starting on Photography 2 - Landscape. In order to keep the blog simple and uncluttered I have created a new blog at cdsherwoodlandscape.blogspot.com. so future posting will appear there.

Visual Studies 1 - Understanding Visual Culture - The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction

I was unable to find a copy of the BBC programme so I was left with just the book. When I am presented with two views, the second of which states that many of the ideas were taken from the first, I always feel uneasy because of a sense of being guided to a particular conclusion. That in some way there is a fear that if I am offered an alternative view I will be enticed to stray from the true course. I am also aware that there is a world of difference between the written word and a television documentary even if they are the product of the same 'author'. Television engages the senses of sound and sight whilst the tone of the narrator and the background music, if there be such, impacts on our emotions inviting us to join the narrator in his version of the world.

Both Benjamin and Berger have a particular view of the world which they see as the unthinking masses; the ruling elite (that changes in form through time but remains in a position to structure the thinking of the masses to see the world as it is as the only ideal way for it to exist); and a very few rationalist intellectuals, a group to which they belong, who can see the world as it really is and only through them can the masses be brought into the sunlit uplands of the truly free. I do not subscribe to this view in its entirety not least the idea of 'unthinking masses'. The  depressing world of Berger and Benjamin where we all sit in front of the television accepting what is put before us without question and awareness is nonsensical. That we have no discrimination and cannot appreciate the differences in the world around us is undermined by many events in history most recently by the riots that hit many of our major cities recently. The Arab Spring that hasstarted change in the Middle East is further evidence that the masses do not happily accept the view of the world forced upon by the ruling classes. I readily acknowledge that too often one despot is all too often replaced by another albeit in a different disguise.

For me the most telling argument against Berger and Benjamin is their apparent willingness to ignore the individuality of humans. I would argue that our experience of the arts, in whatever form, cannot be lumped into a limited number of types. Every experience is unique. We are the product of 'nature' and 'nurture' and as that combination is unique to the individual what we 'see' will be different. Although superficially we may behave in a particular way on entering, say a museum or a religious building, because of perceived social norms, what we experience and how we react to particular stimuli will be unique to us. You only have to sit in an Art Gallery and listen to the comments of your fellow visitors to realise how different we are.

As I was unable to find a copy of the BBC programme I searched the internet to see if there was a critique of the programme written by someone whose views were different to those of Berger. I found what I wanted in The Australian Journal of Media and Culture vol.2 no 2 (1989) Performance Theory Australia eds Brian Shoesmith & Alec McHoul.  The particular article was written by Jan Bruck & John Docker  and is entitled  Puritanic rationalism: Jon Berger's Ways of Seeing and media and culture studies.  Describing Berger's approach as supporting puritanic rationalism the authors find 'spectacular' the absence of ethnography in Ways of Seeing. I would recommend anyone to read this article in full as a counter-argument to the pronouncements of Berger.

We are asked to consider whether a work of art removed from its original site grows or diminishes in meaning. I am left wondering - what is the original site? Clearly the art work on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel if removed and placed elsewhere (if this was possible) would be diminished. The work depends upon its location because the contours of the ceiling are an integral part of the work. Can this be the case with an oil on a flat piece of canvas in its frame. When created by the artist was he aware of its final resting place and used that knowledge to imbue the painting with meaning? It is possible that this was the case in some work but probably not in most cases. Da Vinci could not have envisaged that the Mona Lisa would be displayed in the Louvre in Paris. Certainly he could not have foreseen its present location with its attendant security and lighting measures. Is the Mona Lisa now devoid of the meaning that Da Vinci wished for it. We cannot know, although from a personal point of view when I visited the Louvre I found the experience of seeing the Mona Lisa as an anti-climax - it had none of the impact I expected.

The next question "Does familiarity breed contempt" has no real meaning because it is not apparent to what it is referring. I would agree that familiarity leads to an acceptance bordering on an inability to see what is before us. Whether it leads to contempt rather than simple boredom depends upon the 'value' the viewer has ascribed to the product.

The final question "Has Benjamin's 'aura' been removed by the postcard?" invites the simple answer 'No'.  The term 'aura' has been given a specific meaning by Benjamin and although he would argue that the ability to reproduce a piece of art countless times removes the aura of the original I do not agree with his argument. Again experience suggests that when people believe that they are in the presence of an original their behaviour changes as though the painting and what it represents has some magical quality that reaches out to them in a way that only an original can.

Visual Studies 1 - Understanding Visual Culture

Sent off my first assignment today - Interaction of the media. I am not totally convinced that I knew what I was doing so look forward to my tutor's comments with interest. I found the module difficult despite some experience of philosophy and its strange use of language.

Will now move on to the second module in the hope that I see the light and start to make sene of the Course material.

Visual Culture - the flaneur

The text of the Course material seems strangely at odds with the material I have been able to find.  Not least the statement  "The increase in leisure and disposable income comes alongside the development of the department store and shopping as an activity". Whilst there must be a question mark over whether the increase in disposable income was evenly spread across the classes and consequent leisure time the development of the department store was seen by Walter Benjamin as bringing about the end of flanerie. He held the belief that the flaneur was specific to the arcades of 19th Century Paris with the covered streets and the crowds that they attracted providing the best environment for the appearance of the flaneur. Whilst the department store is a natural progression from the arcade the environment is not conducive to the needs of the flaneur. The arcades offer an area that is both public (the area external to the shops) and private (the shops themselves). In the department store there is no such division.

Despite this view of Benjamin's the term remains in use as a shorthand description (with all the difficulties of such use) of the the man (less frequently a woman) who whilst strolling through the urban environment is consciously aware of the changes that can be experienced from street to street and from building to building. The modern equivalent is the street photographer who wanders, apparently aimlessly, camera at the ready to capture anything that attracts and holds his attention, however fleeting the event. One well known photographer, Jay Eiszel, has spent most of his career strolling the streets of New York with his camera taking images often of the same area but where he sees the interaction of the passing people with the buildings that is unique in some way that may only be the effect of a momentary change in light or reflection in a glass fronted building.

The wider audience for art brought about by the increase in disposable income across a broader range of classes offers the artist the opportunity to at least be able to support himself. Presumably this allowed him greater time to 'think'. Benjamin quotes from the Larousse Dictionary of 1872  "the greater part of men of genius were great flaneurs... Often it is at the time when the artist or the poet seems the least occupied in their work, that they are plunged the deepest." It has always been part of the artists 'facade' that he is not being idle or wasting his time but engaged in deep consideration of his next great piece of art. If there is any truth in this then being seen and acting as a flaneur can only add to the quality and quantity of his output.  It is a separate argument whether this possible increase would benefit the wider society.

Visual Culture: UVC - Photography: the new reality

Brik makes a series of statements that point up what he sees as the main differences between painting and photography. Having opened his article by stating that photography pushes painting aside and that painting resists this pushing he declares that this is how the battle must be interpreted. Clearly he sees painting as a dying art telling the reader that life cannot be represented in a painting having assigned to the painter the duty to change reality and that failure to make this change makes the painter a bad copyist. Having made it clear where he thinks the future lies the rest of the article lauds the photographer. He does however have a warning for the photographer who pursues his dream of creating a 'painterly' effect in his photographs so that they look like reproductions of paintings. Such activity Brik sees as destroying the craft of the photographer taking away the basis of his 'social importance'.

In declaring the demise of painting Brik echoes the view of Paul Delaroche (1797 - 1856) who, on seeing his first daguerreotype (an early type of photograph), declared "from today painting is dead" (there is no evidence that he ever made this remark). As of the present time both were wrong. Photography has not replaced painting and it could be argued the sheer volume of photographic images that bombard our senses every day has, by contrast, given paintings an air of uniqueness and being of another more leisurely and more desirable world. We can sit in the Art Gallery and lose ourselves in a painting whereas the reality of the photograph guides us towards similar experiences in our own lives that may or may not be pleasant.

The attempt by artists to imitate the 'reality' of the photograph is matched by the photographer who strives to create something of the uniqueness of the painter. In the world of the painter this striving to imitate photography probably reaches its peak in the world of photorealism in which the artist paints a copy of a photograph using his skill to faithfully capture every line, nuance of light and colour to re-create the original image. Whilst some would claim that there is no agreement about what constitutes a great photograph the discussion normally revolves around  'laws' that have been borrowed from painting such as the 'rule of the thirds' and the 'golden mean'. Photographers attempt to use the same underlying ideas as those that guided the great painters. In a limited sense there is no difference between painting and photography and indeed both are bound by centuries of aesthetic judgements of what is seen to be good.

Perhaps the most telling element of the striving of photographers to be seen as artists can be seen in the present day output of many photographers and what can be seen in international and national exhibitions. It would seem that the more 'artistic' the style of the photograph the more likely it is to be exhibited and be awarded an accolade. The power of photographic enhancement software such as the ubiquitous 'Photoshop', with almost every imaginable effect on offer, is providing the photographer with previously unavailable chances to imitate painting. The arguments that were put by Brik continue even now and perhaps with even greater force.

It has been suggested that one of the early users of photography in the production of his paintings was Edgar Degas (1834 -1917). In the latter part of the 1880's Degas became a passionate photographer taking photographs of many of his friends. It is claimed that his paintings were often influenced by the new medium of photography with art historians believing that that the large amount of non-essential space, cropping and the placement of the figures on the canvas are evidence of the influence of photography on his work. There is no direct evidence that this is the case and like modern day arguments on the 'reality' of photographs and the amount of manipulation by the photographer opinions vary widely.

One painting that has been seen to be influenced by Degas' knowledge of photography is 'Four Dancers' painted c.1899. To the left of the image are the four dancers with the one to the extreme left of the picture cropped so that only her head and arm are seen. Of the other three dancers two of the faces are seen in profile and the third is a side view of her head. Each of their positions is different (it has been suggested that we are only seeing one dancer moving as in a sequence of images (The Collection -National Gallery of Art website). There is a large element of essentially empty space to the right and Degas has painted it so it appears slightly unfocused that would be the effect of a camera shot.

Whilst there must remain an element of doubt about the strength of the influence of photography on the later work of Degas such doubt does not exist for the work of the Photorealists. One example are the works of Rob Hefferan (1968 - ) (see his web site). An untitled image is of a painting of a female with her back to the viewer and her face half profile. Her dress is open to reveal her naked back. Beyond her is a window giving a glimpse of a garden. The level of detail in her hair is incredible as is the fabric of her dress which makes you feel as though you could stroke it. The original photograph is not good with loss of detail in a white cushion, the window frame and parts of what can be seen through the window. Hefferan has resisted the temptation to fill in the detail that has been lost and has left the blown highlights of the image white.

The Degas image demonstrates the impact of early photography where the painter has become more aware of the elements of the scene that are captured in that brief moment of time that the camera shutter has been open. There is also an awareness of the impact cropping can have on a picture and the use of 'focus' that blurs the unimportant parts of the scene concentrating the viewers attention on the key elements. Hefferan's picture has taken the photograph as its starting point and created a painting mimicking the 'realism' of the photograph thus attempting to combine the two disciplines.

Visual Culture: UVC - Art as a commodity

I was somewhat concerned to find that the required reading was not in the Course Reader! Contact with my tutor revealed that a presumed typo had been amended when there was no need. I suppose it makes a difference from the typo that has not been amended but it does make you wonder who is doing the proof reading and whether the final version issued to students is signed off by the author.

My tutor did point me in the direction of a web page that included the relevant passage but having worked my way through ten pages of Marx and noticed that there was only a requirement to read a couple of pages in the Reader  I was left with a feeling that I am not really sure what I am responding to. (Mind you this is not an uncommon feeling when I have read Marx.)

We are told that "Marx had a particular view of 'commodity' that has informed many views of the consumer society and can be seen to have an impact on the way that collectors of artworks regard the desire to collect." We are offered no evidence that this is the case and whether the use of the term "can be seen" is simply the view of the author of the Course or is a widely accepted view. We are then asked if we can see ways in which this may help us to understand the art market.

In the selected passage Marx distinguishes between the 'value' of an article as provided by the level of expenditure of human labour (perhaps the equivalent of the 'cost' of the article to the producer as used in modern accounting) and the 'exchange value' of an article i.e the amount someone will pay in kind say by the provision of labour; by the aggregate of products that would be seen as a reasonable equivalent ( one of my products will 'buy' 10 of his products as seen in some swap shops); or, more commonly, by the tendering of accepted currency.  The latter system, that is dominant in modern society where there is no social interaction between the producer and the buyer, attempts to provide a common commodity (money) that offers a fair system for the exchange of products. That the system is far from fair is seen daily as markets in commodities are manipulated by speculators who never handle the products that they buy and sell and over which the majority of people have virtually no control.

Turning our attention to art the 'value' of art lies in the cost of the materials used and the time spent on producing the final product. Yet here we have a paradox - the cost of labour is not capable of being calculated in a meaningful way. Unless in some arbitrary fashion the 'hourly' rate of the producer is calculated and indeed the number of hours worked agreed then the cost of labour is not known. There is an exception to this and that is where the artist is not directly involved in the production providing only an idea and a 'name' such as the works of Jeff Koons or Damien Hirst. Presumably the actual producers i.e. the painters are paid an agreed rate that bears little relationship to the money that is made. Art therefore has no 'value' unless we ascribe to the idea of a mystical value that belongs to the genius of the artist and the level of his suffering.

Art acquires 'exchange value' when it is offered and accepted in payment for something else. Stories abound of artists paying their bar bills by offering a painting and myths abound of the long lost work by a now famous artist that were discovered in a dusty storeroom in some bar or cafe. I presume, although having no direct evidence, that this practice continues. Perhaps Wetherspoons have a company policy on the acceptance of art and legends are circulated of the manager who turned down an early Damien Hirst!. For the most part art is exchanged for currency and on occasion for a great deal of money. Again there will be (apart from the sponsorship of an artist by a wealthy patron) little social contact between the producer (artist) and the buyer. For the buyer it is simply a product. How he sees his purchase is very much a personal thing. He may appreciate it as a great work of art to which he responds emotionally. He may see it as an investment that in time will give him a good level of return. He may obtain it simply because he wants to own something that no one else has and may take this obsession to extreme lengths. He may want to demonstrate his wealth and 'taste' in an obvious way by of ostentatious display in properties he owns. It is of course be a combination of any of these things. What can be said that the reasons are as varied as there are purchasers of art and that to attempt to provide a reason applicable to all is doomed to failure.

Does Marx's views help us to understand the art market? Only insofar as it helps us to understand any market. There is nothing unique about the art market that has many characteristics of say the sale of antique cars. Products are 'advertised' as desirable and by their acquisition it is suggested that the purchaser will attain some desirable end that will set him/her apart from the crowd. Prices way beyond the 'value' will be paid because by the retention of high prices the buyers in the market reinforce how the market is regulated and, where there is an element of snobbery, ensures that the number of new entrants is kept to an elite few.


In the Journal of Contemporary Art October 1986 Koons reveals that he is an ideas person and that he turn to others, more skilled than him, to produce the final product. In a sense his works are the product of a manufactory where the relevant labour skills are brought together to create the 'idea' of one person. What is less clear is the relationship between the ideas man and the producers and whether there is an equal division of the fruits of their co-operation. I would guess not. His ideas are borrowed and on one or two occasions have been shown to be directly used. He usually obtains the legal rights to the object of his work which he makes clear comes from the 'ready-made' and 'enlarges the parameters'. His work is an exaggeration of the familiar that may have appeal to the wider world and not just to the elite art-lovers.

I cannot see how the required reading helps us to understand the work of Koons other than in the general sense of 'value' and 'exchange value'. There is no evidence in what I have been able to find that Koons was affected by these concepts.

It is stated that the work of Koons influenced the work of  Damien Hirst who produced an 18 foot version of a fourteen inch anatomical toy. Hirst also uses others to produce his ideas and there is a story that sums up the art world that one of the artists who was leaving the studio asked to be allowed to take one of Hirst's works. He suggested that she took one of her own but she declined as she wanted the 'name' that guaranteed that its 'exchange value' would be considerably higher. Perhaps what we should be examing the 'exchange value' of the artist rather than his/her works.

Visual Studies - Ideology and Interpellation

When I first read the set reading I felt oddly disturbed. During my career I read a large number of written pieces by persons who were mentally disturbed or mentally ill. The structure of Althusser's work was strongly reminiscent of those pieces. The 'internal conversation' that attempts to meet possible criticism or misunderstanding of what he has written and the almost 'stream of consciousness' way of writing left me with the strong impression that here was someone who was or very recently had been mentally ill. I therefore looked further into his background and was not surprised to find a history of mental illness and time spent in Institutions. I was surprised to find that he had strangled his wife. No action had been taken because at that time French law did not allow for the trial of someone who was, at the time of the event, deemed to be not in control of his actions.

I am not competent to judge whether his illness affected the viability of his work although there are critics particularly after he undertook during the late 1960's and 70's ( which encompasses the time of the set reading) to revise some of his earlier work. Some saw these revisions as a betrayal of his previous theoretical accomplishments (which are considerable by any standards) and that there was an element of political motivation. (Althusser was a Marxist and during the 60's, particularly among French Communists, and there was considerable disquiet about the way that Communism was being practiced particularly by Stalin in Russia.)  Others saw the revisions as showing that his work as a whole was self-contradictory. Others have argued that the revisions are consistent with what they see as the goal of Althusser's work - the development of a political philosophy that could be the foundation for political practice.

In the Course material we are told that : "Althusser reformulated the classical Marxist base/superstructure, giving, inter alia, the creative arts a more active part and questioning the primacy of the orthodox base." There is no indication during which period this took place. However we are told in the following sentence that "He [Althusser] and Lucan are often cited (unfortunately we are not told by whom) as amongst the more important figures in Structuralism and the events in Paris in 1964". The reason that the timing seems important to me is in the introduction to 'Louis Althusser (1918 -1990) from 'Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses' [Art in Theory 1900 - 2000 An Anthology of Changing Ideas eds Charles Harrison & Paul Wood pp 953 Blackwell Publishing New Edition 2003] it is posited "....increasingly under the influence of Maoism and of the Events of 1968, Althusser's thoughts turned through 180 degrees. Marxism's virtue no longer lay in its status as a (scientific) theory of social formations but in its partisanship as theoretical practice in the class struggle. The sphere of ideology became a crucial site of the struggle: the intellectual and moral means whereby class societies reproduced themselves and where revolutionaries challenged them." If this volte face did occur is it safe to accept his earlier pronunciations on the place of creative art?

Structuralism seems to take many forms and there seems to be no one agreed definition or in some cases no definition at all in learned works each author using it a slightly different way in support of their work.
There may be common elements (see the work of Alison Assiter) but these are not self-evident nor would all users of the term agree.  In the summary at the head of her paper in The British Journal of Sociology Volume XXXV Number 2 June 1984 Assiter writes " "Louis Althusser's work is often mentioned as being both structuralist and Marxist....I....argue that Althusser is not both structuralist and Marxist simultaneously. I conclude therefore, that, at least as far as Althusser's work is concerned - and his writings are taken to be paradigmatic of structuralist Marxism - it is misleading to lump together structuralism and Marxism."

On the same page (I was unable to access the complete article) she quotes Althusser -  'We believe that despite the terminological ambiguity, the profound tendency of our texts was not attached to the "structuralist" ideology'. In essence he denies he is 'structuralist'. However to quote from the definition given in Wikipedia "Structuralism argues that a specific domain of culture may be understood by means of a structure - modelled on language - that is distinct both from the organizations of reality and those of ideas or the imagination......in Althusser's Marxist theory, the structural order of the capitalist mode of production is distinct both from the actual, real agents involved in its relations and from the ideological forms in which those relations are understood."

In the required reading Althusser states (p957) - "Ideology is a 'Representation' of the Imaginary Relationship of Individuals to their Real Conditions of Existence".  He goes on - "...while admitting that they [Ideologies] do not correspond to reality i.e that they constitute an illusion, we admit that they do make an allusion  to reality, and that they only need to be 'interpreted' to discover the reality of the world behind their imaginary representation of that world (ideology = illusion/allusion)."  Certainly this statement implies a structuralist approach.

Can this apparent conflict between the denial of Althusser that his texts were not "attached to the 'structuralist' ideology" be reconciled with his comments on ideology. Structuralism as an intellectual movement developed in France in the 1950's and 60's and Althusser could not fail to be aware of its underlying approach and the importance given to it by linguists, anthropologists, and other philosophers. There is a view, suggested by Spinoza, that authors are 'bound' by the ideas and ideology of the times in which they live and they, like all of us, understand things through the ideas and concepts that are available to us. If this is the case then Althusser would be 'bound' by the structuralist ideology that would be a major part of the world in which he lived. He could not avoid using the language of 'structuralism' because that was the dominant theme of the time.

The final question that we are asked to consider "Is there, in your view, an area of visual culture where this idea may seem to act in an overt way?" I am not sure what is meant by "this idea" so I am not sure how to respond. If it is a reference to the immediately preceding question that asks what does Althusser mean by 'ideology' then I have to consider whether there is an area of visual culture of the representation of the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence that is overt. My initial response is to say that the inclusion of the word 'overt' negates the proposition. Whilst much of what we see, say in advertising, is designed to support our ideas of the world we believe we live in ( that we can all own the latest gadget, drive the most luxurious car and look like the latest fashion icon by buying a particular product) I would question whether such advertising is 'overt'. In fact the underlying message is usually subliminal and offers a view of a world that is no more 'real' than the one in which we believe in.

Whoops!! - Edited the wrong thing

Thought I ought to point out that I managed to edit my draft Man and the Coast Blog of 23rd August and replace the revised blog in the same place. This leads to the rather bizarre situation of my response to my tutor's comments that relate to the original draft come after the revised version.

DPP - Tutor's Response to draft Assignment 5 and my reply

Had my tutor's response to my draft submission for assignment 5. He raises a number of issues to which I have responded.

• Whether or not having a consistent aspect ration - i.e. all images of the same proportions - would be beneficial

I am never sure about this because images often lend themselves to a particular ratio for example letter 'box'. I know it exercised my mind a great deal when I was preparing a submission for my LRPS as it was deemed to be important that the panel presented a coherent whole. I can try both the present form of layout and the consistent one and see if either is better than the other.

• The inclusion of black and white images.

My tutor understood why I had included black and white images to show what I had learnt. He went on to suggest that I should consider using black and white images for a specific subject matter within the portfolio. I had not thought of this and the idea is appealing and well worth trying. It clearly would add a level of coherence and would avoid the impression that Black and White images had just been added because I thought that I had to include them.

• Think about the relationship - in design and competition terms - between 'empty spaces' in your images and areas of interest - the man-made features.

I have undertaken to look again at the pictures in terms of relationship between empty spaces and the object.  I made a deliberate choice to emphasise the vastness of the sky and sea whilst including the obtrusive elements. I felt there was a risk of over-emphasising the intrusion of the man-made objects if the ratio was wrong.

• Weather. Would shooting in varying weather conditions add an additional element of interest.

I did try different weather shots (practically unavoidable this summer!) but my thinking on this was to keep the concept of happy sunny times at the seaside that is how many remember their childhood trips. Although probably more representative of the British weather cloudy days, or rain, 'dampened' the hoped for idyllic picture.

• Your man and the coast theme is mainly concerned with man-made objects. As a theme it works well but I wonder if you explored the possibility of also focusing on activities that people do.

This comment made me realise that I had unconsciously shied away from the inclusion of people. For some reason I am uncomfortable with those type of shots and so try to avoid them. I need to step outside my comfort zone because the exclusion of people is to miss the fact that often it is the crowds of people that flock to the Coast that can have a major impact on everything, particularly the enjoyment of the individual.

Whilst typing this blog and considering the tutor's response to my draft submission I realised that I had created a portfolio that, by choice of images, had lent weight to my initial premiss. In a sense there is an element of misleading the audience, not by the alteration or enhancement of the individual image but by the overall presentation. The world presented exists but what is offered is not representative of what would be considered the 'real' world. Superficially it seems a harmless deceit but is not all deceit wrong?

Visual Studies 1 - UVC Base & Superstructure

From the given that in order to survive as an individual and as a species it is necessary for humans to continually produce the necessities for sustaining life. In order to do this there is a need for the individual to enter into, willingly or unwillingly, relationships with others who have the same need. [This is accepted as a 'given' and that no other alternatives did or can exist. Whether this is true I know not!].

Marx argued that this was the foundation for the understanding of the development of society through the ages. He furthered his argument by stressing the importance of the constraints imposed by the nature of labour that required people to enter into definite relationships, one with another, and that ad-hoc or casual relationships would fail to meet the needs of the group. Marx, using the term, productive relationships, identified such relationships as the economic base of of society. From this economic base there arises the superstructure of society - ideas about acceptable behaviour, laws, religion, political institutions and customs.

As the tools of the economic base change the productive relationships change, so will the superstructure as it adjusts to the tensions that arise from these relationship changes. Stresses that are not released by adjustments accepted by the majority lead to conflict and sometimes violent revolution. Tensions are inevitable as the old ruling class fights with all the means at their disposal to retain the status quo that serves them so well. Recent events in the Middle East are an example. History suggests that the overthrow of one ruling class will lead to the rise of another that may be more enlightened but are equally as keen to hang on to the privileges that come from their new status.

I found Chandler's comments on base and superstructure confusing and without structure. In essence nothing made sense to me which is a comment on me rather than Chandler's work. It may also be that I was unclear whether to stay with the request in the Course material to read the section entitled 'Base and Superstructure' or to study the other articles.

I see very little difference between the looking at society in general or the media and the arts. The media and the arts are not separate from the society in which they exist and are constrained by what they do by the norms of that society. Whilst it can be argued that the individual artist can attempt to live outside these norms the very act of doing so presumes a knowledge of what those norms are and what impact they have on the individual. It is impossible to live outside of a society because of the need to acquire in some way the means of survival. The economic structure of any modern society is inextricably linked to all that goes on within that society and as long as there remains a concept of individual ownership of 'property' this will remain the case. I presume not even the most anti-society artist would happily stand by whilst someone takes a piece of work that strikes their fancy.

DPPAssignment5 - Man and the Coast

Man has an uneasy relationship with the coast seeing it as both a source of pleasure and as a threat because of the ease with which an enemy could land on an undefended coastline. Its wild, previously sparsely inhabited, areas also offer the opportunity to build structures such as nuclear power stations that would be politically unacceptable in more populated areas.

From our early childhood we carry memories of unspoilt beaches offering idyllic settings:

but even then we were beginning to take for granted as a natural part of the scene man's attempts to control the sea and prevent it washing away the things we wanted to visit.

Here we see breakwaters designed to prevent the erosion of the beach that have become so much part of the 'seaside' that they are almost invisible to us as we sit on the downwind side and claim our space. Recent attempts to prevent the sand being washed away are more brutal in appearance:

and offensive to the eye and yet these too may well become accepted as normal as time passes and we begin to feel that they have always been there.

The coastline is a dangerous place particularly for shipping and man has long relied upon the lighthouse to give the mariner an indication of where he is and where danger lurks from early wooden buildings such as the Low Lighthouse at Harwich

to the very modern. Built at Dungeness to replace a much older building that is now a tourist attraction it is one in a very long line of such structures on this sight.

Being an island race we have long had to defend our shores. Some defences dominate the shoreline but because of their age and familiarity and their use of local materials they are seen as a 'natural' part of the area in which they stand such as at Bambergh Castle in Northumberland.

In later times the fear of invasion by Napoleon's forces led to the construction of defensive towers along our eastern and southern coastlines.

Here the two Martello towers seen on the horizon are reminders of more fearful times. Again time and familiarity have lled to their acceptance and in some cases conversion to other uses.

Of course the coast has offered man many benefits not least in the carrying out of trade with other Countries. Modern containerisation has led to investment in container ports with their massive cranes dominating the skyline for miles around. Harwich harbour remains very much a traditional port yet just a short distance up the coast is Britain's largest container port - Felixstowe.

Shot from Harwich we see the clutter and debris so much part of man's presence. Often we forget that much that is unsightly along our coast is caused by the thoughtlessness of people who care little for the disfigurement caused by their neglect. In the distance the disfiguring of the skyline by the giant cranes of the Container port at Felixstowe.

Even so for many of us the seaside is a day out for pleasure and indulgence. Unfortunately there is a price to pay and what is one man's pleasure beach is another man's nightmare. Skegness Pleasure Beach represents the many similar features up and down our Coast. I wonder what the planning authorities would say now if proposals were made for a similar invasion.

This image of Great Yarmouth at sunset shows yet another impact of man - light pollution. We are so used to it in all our towns and cities that we no longer see it as being a nuisance or possibly not see it all.

Perhaps the most disturbing feature of the use of our coastline is the building of nuclear power stations. Justified on the grounds of less risk to the population at large as Chernobyl and recent events in Japan has shown a major catastrophe puts millions at risk across a vast tract of our planet wherever the Plant is located.

Here at Dungeness in Kent the power station stands in juxtaposition to the old lighthouse. The are two nuclear power stations here; one of which is now being decommissioned whilst the other has an expected life until 2016. The necessary transmission lines are visible for miles.

We take for granted much of what is around us and, probably for most without thinking the gradual erosion by man's activities of the Coast that has been a source of enjoyment and relaxation for the last two centuries. Man has long earned his living from the bounty of the ocean but now there is heavy reliance on the tourist trade that brings not only cash to the economy but also the hidden price of over-use of the resources. One has only to pay a short visit to most of our Coast to realise that we are rapidly losing that which we hold most dear. 

Visual Studies - UVC Fetishising the object of your eye.

In the Course material we are asked to note questions that occur to us as we read through the set reading. I found myself constantly asking where the conclusions drawn by the writers or those whom they quoted had come from. As is common in Psychology a selection of words or terms such as 'devour' are used to support whatever argument the writer is presenting. The question I always ask is it a fair selection in so far as the word is in common use in the same context and can the conclusions offered be verified if other less emotive terms are used. Further questions arise when bald statements are made that suggest that what is stated is a given fact. Whilst it is not surprising for a Freudian to see the eye as the penis or that young boys have a very real fear of castration the evidence is very limited and is an assumption that is carried into the analysis by the analyst so it is not surprising that it is found to be the case. It is often valuable to compare the work and statements by Freud with the followers of Jung or Adler.

Critics of the Freudian approach point out that many of his conclusions are drawn from work with a very limited number of cases that are not typical or representative of the general population. Based on a very small sample the theory is then 'found' in others.A good example is in the final part of the Otto Fenchel ¹ extract where he discusses the problems of the psychogenesis of myopia.

My experience is that psychology in general and psychoanalysis in particular has much to offer in individual cases but that extrapolating the findings to the general population is fraught with danger. The differing approaches adopted by those who follow the teachings of Freud or those having Jungian training are in themselves problematic and the differences inside the many disciplines only make the problems worse.

How then is it possible to use the information in the Reader to make any generalised statements about how each individual sees the world and in particular - art? Is there any value in trying to decide if an object is a 'fetish' in any individual case? Seeing a landscape painting as a 'replacement' for real countryside may, in an individual case, be a reasonable view in the particular but I would guess that there are as many if not more that either see it as just something to fill a gap or to complement the general decor. I am a photographer and my favourite genre is landscape and the photographs I display on my walls are of landscapes. Am I to conclude from this that they are a 'replacement' for the real countryside (assuming there is such a thing as 'real' countryside). All I can say is that I live in the country and spend a great deal of my time passing through country that I find outstanding. I am aware that the photographs that I have chosen from many hundreds are those that evoke a particular memory or emotional response within me.

"How does what you have read help your understanding of why and how we look at things in a ritualised way - for instance going to an art gallery?"


There is a built in assumption within the question - that we look at things in a 'ritualised way'. There is no evidence offered to suggest that this is the case . I assume the term is not being used in a psychological sense where it defines a set of actions adopted by a person to relieve anxiety or stress (e.g checking, more than once, that doors and windows are locked before leaving the house) that interfere with that person's life - sometimes described as obsessive compulsive disorder. In a general use of the term 'rituals' i.e. a set of actions, can aid in the creation of  group identity.  Applying this to a visit to an art gallery it is evident from observation there is an agreed way of behaving that seems to impinge itself on everyone that enters. Certain types of behaviour are frowned upon and those seen stepping outside the norm are judged to be 'not one of us'.

One can usefully compare a visit to a public art gallery to a viewing at a private gallery. In the former case there is no particular form of dress requirement and you are not seen to be not part of the group based on your dress code. There is a general acceptance of not getting into the view line of someone else nor discussing any particular painting in a loud voice. Observation (I worked within walking distance of the Tate and spent many a lunch hour wandering around) suggests that visitors begin to adopt a stance for looking at the pictures that mimics that of those around them. Probably based on the desire to be part of the group and not to be seen as different in some way. A similar phenomenon can be seen in museums that suggests that most of us have a desire to be part of the social grouping that visits places of 'learning' which is probably a sub-set of the desire to 'belong' to a group that is very strong in most humans.

In the latter case -  the showing at a private gallery - dress code is exactly that - a code. There are those who see the occasion to dress to show their superiority and possibly wealth. There are also those who dress to emphasise their difference and to reject the norms and values of other groups but frequently find themselves part of a group anyway because there are others who have adopted the same dress code. It is also not unusual to hear very loud discussions of the exhibits that enable the speaker to display their knowledge (or in some cases - ignorance) of the type of art being viewed. Interestingly if one can survive long enough there arrives a point at which views start to coalesce around that expressed by the dominant personality present (again behaviour that is common to many group meetings.).

Group behaviour is a well studied area by a whole range of behaviour analysts. From an early age we learn how to behave within a group and how to be accepted within that group. Initially it may be by direct instruction from parents or significant others, or by painful rejection but gradually we learn a strategy that works in the majority of cases and use it to test the waters in any new grouping with which we are faced.  Rebellious teenagers who avowedly reject the norms of their parents or other groups seem always to seek out a group that share their current value set. The elderly who reject all things modern also surround themselves surrounded by similar thinking people. The group provides verification of our identity and through belonging strengthens our convictions that we are right.

It will be fairly evident that my answer to the stated question would be a blunt 'No'. I find that my experience of Freudian thinking and its obsession with sex, whilst in itself may offer solutions to individual problems, offers very little in terms of society and the individual make up of those who are part of that society.

"Do the articles suggest to you reasons for staring at someone being at best bad manners and at worst threatening".


If one accepts the idea that the eye is seen as the penis (I have to admit that this is the first time that I have ever come across this idea) then clearly staring would be seen as both bad manners and extremely threatening. Is this the case for both sexes or is it more threatening for the female who presumably sees it as the start to sexual violation? If the starer is homosexual should a man being stared at respond in a similar way to that of a woman? Is it necessary for there to be awareness of the concept of the penis eye in the viewed before any reaction or is there somehow a genetic element to our make up where sub-consciously we are aware of the phallic nature of the eye? Is there any real evidence, other than in the world of Freud, that such a concept exists or is this on a par with reactions to such things as the 'bogeyman'?

A lot of the myths of our childhood designed to frighten or control have elements of the staring 'monster' or of the 'magic' eye that in some way has the ability to control the victim. It may be the case that these memories remain with us and affect our reactions to someone who stares at us or looks at us longer than is usual. Loss of control is an underlying fear with most and the thought that someone is capable of taking control of our actions just by looking at us is disturbing. These buried memories would be re-inforced by watching the success of the hypnotist in getting people to do something that is not part of their normal behaviour pattern. Films made for children such as Jungle Book re-inforce the message by presenting the snake as having the ability to hypnotise humans (think what happens to Mowgli).

Given such conditioning it is not unreasonable to see why we find staring objectionable.

However there are other elements of learning/conditioning that have to be taken into account. Very young babies pick up their information about the world around them by visual and tactile contact. A long hard stare by an adult is seen to be threatening by most and it can be argued that this is early learned behaviour. Very young infants quickly learn when a situation is threatening by receiving the same messages that on a previous occasion led to its discomfort or possibly pain. If there is an association between the parent or other adult staring and discomfort/pain then this pattern becomes imprinted and carried forward into adulthood.

There is also a cultural element. Different cultures have different 'rules' for eye contact. First meetings between different cultures can be made difficult where one culture sees sustained eye contact as showing politeness and interest whilst seen by another culture as the height of rudeness.

"Can you make any suggestions as to the reasons some people need to avidly watch television?"


I make the assumption that 'need' in this case refers to an irresistible desire to avidly watch television as opposed to someone who has either work that requires that they watch television or, say, an interest in stocks and shares so that the watching has a financial reason. Furthermore I assume that the time spent watching television is out of the ordinary or even could be considered abnormal or all other activities are put on hold in order to watch a favourite television programme.

Presumably the watcher gains pleasure or benefit from the activity greater than he would experience from other activities. Becoming totally absorbed into the world as portrayed in a soap opera to the extent that the characters are 'seen' as real people and that their portrayed lives are real suggests that it is escapism from something in their lives the avid watcher finds difficult to tolerate. It is a feature that existed even in the time of radio programmes that followed the lives of 'ordinary people' as was demonstrated when one of the characters in the Archers died in a fire and many wreaths were sent by listeners to the supposed funeral.

If we describe a fetish as something that takes the place of something in the real world that is seen as unobtainable or unapproachable then avid watching of television can be described as a fetish. An obsessive desire to see a particular person on television either as real or as a character and fantasise about the relationship between the watcher and the watched can also be seen as a fetish whether there are sexual overtones or not.

Similar conclusions can be drawn from the total involvement of a person in computer games for many hours a day to the exclusion of all other activities such as social interaction.

If we live in a world that we see as hostile and uncaring or in which our desires remain unfulfilled then the opportunity to escape offered by 'other' worlds can prove irresistible. In our fantasy world all things are achievable and we remain masters of our own destiny - something that is not obtainable in what we see as the real world.

" What visual fetishes have you noted in everyday life - your own or others"?


As far as I am aware I do not have any fetishes in my own life although presumably this is something I would not know. To me what could be described as a fetish by others is seen by me as a natural part of my life. In others I can only make a judgement based on my belief about how an object is seen by the other person. I can have no direct evidence unless I am happy to assign such a status to everyday objects. For example religious symbols are, by one definition, fetishes. The picture of Christ on the Cross is representative of the suffering he bore for the redemption of our sins; communion is his flesh and blood; and icons of the saints represent the good that we should all aspire to in our lives. To the atheist all of that is just nonsense.

I do not see how this question can be answered honestly or with any conviction because we cannot, for the most part, make a judgement based on what evidence we can acquire.

"Why are people so often so keen to display wedding photos or family portraits." 


Photos or portraits act as reminder of certain times or events in the lives of members of our family. We get an emotional reaction to the image that has some links to the event at the time of the photograph. We remember happy or sad times and this can trigger a whole flood of memories linked either to the person shown, the event itself or linked memories such as seeing Aunty Dot may remind us of the time she fell into the sea from Skegness Pier.

We may also surround ourselves with family portraits in order to protect ourselves from the reality of our actual familial relationships. Being able to look back on happier times may help us avoid the sadness of a broken relationship or rift within the family as a whole. We are replacing the reality of the present world with something that brings memories of happier times (or perhaps the opposite situation).

In photos people don't grow old, they don't suffer from crippling diseases, they don't die and the sun always seems to shine. They freeze time for ever. Looking at images of your children as babies reminds you of yourself as much younger person with your hopes and ambition still in front of you. It gives the opportunity to reflect. Whether it is a happy thought process or otherwise is what you are or have become.


References


1   Otto Fenichel (1954) IN: visual culture: the reader; eds jessica evans and stuart hall; Sage Publications Ltd 2010

UVC - Modernist Art: the critic speaks

Greenberg indicates that the purpose of his article is to plot the rationale of 'Modernist Art' The argument fundamental to article is his belief that Modernism arises from a desire to distinguish the arts one from the other.  In an earlier article [ 'Towards a Newer Laocoon']¹ Greenberg states "It is by virtue of its medium that each art is unique and strictly itself'.  By using the characteristic methods of a discipline to criticise that discipline, an approach used by the philosopher Emmanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason to examine logic, one should reach that which makes the art unique. He further argues that "Purity in art consists in the acceptance, willing acceptance, of the limitations of the medium of the specific art."². That of course raises the issue of what the limitations are for painting.

Although he suggests that Kantian methods have been used to arrive at the answer he fails to show how the conclusion was reached which leaves the reader having to accept it as a given truth. With this proviso we learn from him: "The limitations that constitute the medium of painting - [are] the flat surface, the shape of the support, the properties of the pigment...."^3. It is legitimate to ask if any other art form has these limitations because if the answer is Yes then painting is not made unique by these limitations and is therefore part of a wider set of arts that are limited by a flat surface and thus undermining Greenberg's whole argument. An immediate art form that springs to mind is that of photography where the limitations are almost identical. Certainly there is the flat surface and the shape of the support (I make the assumption that the 'support' is the paper itself) and one could argue that ink pigments are of the same ilk as paint used by an artist. Perhaps stretching the argument too far it could also be argued that television and cinema have the same limitations.

Supporters of Greenberg could, and probably would, argue that photography is not an 'art' and therefore Greenberg's argument remains sound. However the borderline between painting and photography in the final outcome of the work is blurred to say the least. Lets put the argument to one side because the purpose of this blog is not to argue one way or the other.

In the article read for this blog ⁴ Greenberg develops his argument. Again no evidence is provided for his assertion that there was a risk that "art was in danger of being assimilated into entertainment and that entertainment was at risk of being assimilated into therapy". He continues "The arts could save themselves from this levelling down only by demonstrating that the kind of experience they provided was valuable in its own right and not to be obtained from any other kind of activity" ⁵. In my view this does not necessarily mean that it is not of the class 'entertainment' because many activities that are widely accepted as entertainment could argue that what they provide is valuable in its own right and not available elsewhere.

He makes a more assertive statement:  "Flatness alone was unique and exclusive to that art.... Flatness, two-dimensionality was the only condition painting shared with no other art."⁶ As noted above this may be true or not and as will be shown later not even Greenberg is wholly convinced of the truth of the statement. Assuming for the moment that the statement is true we then need to discover how the Modernists tackled this limitation in their work.

Greenberg offers the following : "What it [Modernist Painting] has abandoned in principle is the representation of the kind of space that recognisable, three-dimensional objects can inhabit... Three-dimensionality is the province of sculpture, and for the sake of its own autonomy painting has had above all to divest itself of everything it might share with sculpture."⁷ Yet can this be true or indeed is it possible? One element that the artist cannot control is the viewer, a human being, subject to all the contraries of both his/her own unique make up biologically and that of experience gained through the years. Most humans attempt to make sense of objects, including paintings, however obscure or clueless the evidence, in order to fit that object within a class that he/she understands. Faced with say a Mondrian we will attempt to make sense of the rectangles of colour and their placing by applying what we 'know'. The unique result for us may not be what the artist intended or anticipated. For most of us our world is three-dimensional and we are in a sense programmed to try to create 3D objects from the scantiest of information.

Am I convinced by Greenberg's article. In brief  - No. Not least because towards the end of the article  he tells the reader: "It is understood, I hope, that in plotting the rationale of Modernist art I have had to simplify and exaggerate. The flatness towards which Modernist painting orients itself can never be an utter flatness."⁸  He is saying that the evidence that he has presented for our consideration has been changed and one must conclude from this that the changes made are such as to support his argument. Perhaps the most telling comment is "No one artist was, or is yet, consciously aware of this tendency, nor could an artist work successfully in conscious awareness of it"^9. If this is the case then it is difficult if not impossible to understand how the movement happened. The only explanation is that the term 'Modernist' is simply an umbrella applied for convenience to a number of disparate styles that may or may not have been attempts to paint within the constraints of the flat surface.

In conclusion I am not convinced that Greenberg has successfully shown that painting is unique and has fundamentals that it does not share with other arts.
References:
1   Greenberg Clement: Towards a New Laocoon 1940  In: Art in Theory 1900 - 2000 An Anthology of Changing Ideas;             eds Charles Harrison & Paul Wood New Edition 2003 Blackwell Publishing p566
2  op cit p566
3  Greenberg Clement: Modernist Painting In: Art in Theory 1900 - 2000 An Anthology of Changing Ideas; eds Charles Harrison & Paul Wood New Edition 2003 Blackwell Publishing p 775
4  op cit pp 773 -779
5 op cit p 774
6 op cit p 775
7 op cit p775
8 op cit p777
9 op cit p778

DPP - Other peoples photographs

Spent yesterday as a steward at an exhibition of photographs by members of the eastern region of the Royal Photographic Society and Fotospeed Photographers. (Fotospeed photographers  are lecturers sponsored by photographic paper manufacturers Fotospeed and have considerable experience in a range of genres.)

I had been previously and the second opportunity allowed me to spend more time both in looking at the images as a whole and also in greater detail. There was a wide range of abilities because the RPS exhibition was a mix of selected images and at least one from any member who had attended the selection day. Overall the standard was high and as the subjects covered ranged from nudes to almost the abstract there was a great deal to learn. Inevitably my own personal preferences drew me towards particular images so that I could improve my own work but I did spend time with colleagues who were visiting to discuss work that lay outside my own.

As it was a quiet day in terms of visitors I was able to spend a large amount of time and was able to go back to particular images. I found myself doing this when images were mentioned by the visiting public whose responses covered a whole range of likes and dislikes. Not surprisingly responses differed depending upon their involvement in photography and some of the most candid comments were from young children whose opinions were not limited 'pre-conditioning'. Sometimes we forget how much our background effects our responses to all forms of art.

This is the third year that I have had this opportunity and it proves to be an excellent way to learn more.

Visual Studies 1: Understanding Visual Culture

Received the Course material and sent off for the books that are not provided. Got one of them yesterday but still await the leviathan Amazon to send the others.

On glancing through the first book received - practices of looking   an introduction to visual culture [Sturken & Cartwright  OUP 2001] . I felt that I was returning to an earlier part of my life. I studied philosophy at 3rd level whilst undertaking my OU studies (some 35 years ago!) and the strange use of language and various references in the new book reminded me strongly of those days. I thoroughly enjoyed the discipline of the study of philosophy and find myself looking forward to this new venture. Once again I can become engrossed in esoteric discussion/arguments in a world that purports to relate to the world in which we all think we live but that often seems to do so only by accident.

Of course having said that I may fall flat on my face and ask myself why I didn't continue with my photographic studies. Only time will tell.

DPP Assignment 4(2)

Received my tutor's comments today. I am happy to report that he stated that the work was 'good' (huge sigh of relief). He does raise a number of points that I need to think about and include in my future approach to photography.

He states that in this particular case he was more interested in the concept behind the image rather than the actual production of it. He continues:-  the idea that leads to the final image, the planning and the sourcing of individual component images that show me how premeditated and focussed you were on the assignment. And these are the main skills I'm looking for in assignment 4. I have no argument with this and indeed it makes a lot of sense and my only comment would be that this statement or something similar would have been useful in the Course notes. It is a discussion I have had before where the Course 'advice' is not clear in what is being tested in the Assignment.

In terms of execution and production he remarks that technical digital skills are part and parcel of being a photographer and we need to be fully conversant with a core set of Photoshop tools. Again I fully agree and I spend a fair bit of my time trying to master these skills by using resources other than the OCA. I read a large number of books and magazines that offer practice and advice on techniques and also subscribe to Kelby Training (www.kelbytraining.com) and I recently joined the National Association of Photoshop Professionals (NAPP) to gain access to their magazine and online tutorials. Furthermore I hold the Licentiateship of the Royal Photographic Society and in process of gaining this received a great deal of tuition and advice from Fellows and Associates of the Society.

I was recently discussing the Course with a colleague who asked the question -"Does the Course provide information on enhancing images?" and he was surprised that the answer was "very little". Given that the Course is at 1st level exactly how much prior knowledge is the student supposed to have and equally important - what level of access to sophisticated cameras and software is expected?  I can only wonder if tutors apply different standards depending upon their view of the students former experience.

The question is raised in the tutor's report whether the image I created fulfills the 'real or fake' brief. On further consideration I would agree with his conclusion that it is so obviously a 'fake' that very few people would be fooled. He describes it as an illustration rather than a photograph and I understand from this that there is a point where a montage or changed photograph moves from being a photograph to an illustration. Obviously this boundary is not a fixed thing and probably would not be agreed upon by different individuals (rather like that which is seen as cheating in Photoshop and that seen as acceptable changes). It is fair comment to say that my book cover was an illustration and that it does not raise the doubt in the mind of the viewer as to whether it is 'real'.

As my tutor comments there are a whole range of possibilities in tackling the assignment and whilst he states that my approach was legitimate there are others. At the end of the day it is a matter of personal approach as long as the brief is met.

DPP Assignment 5 - Initial thoughts on selection

At present I have some 45 images for the assignment that need to culled to 10 - 12. In order to reduce the necessity to return to where the images were taken I take a number of shots of the same thing from different angles and from varying distances. On first inspection there are some discards for a variety of reasons but, hopefully, some that are worth further consideration. Whilst I was kicking this around in my head I felt that I had to have some criteria to decide what elements and make up of an image work in particular circumstances.

Most of the current pack of images fall under the general term of landscapes.Whilst I had some idea of what made a good landscape I thought it might be worthwhile looking at the work of acclaimed landscape artists. This was a change of approach for me as generally I have never been convinced of the value of looking at other peoples work believing the best way was to go out and photograph and establish what works for me through trial and error - i.e. learn from my mistakes/failures. I visited the BBC website 'your paintings' and after browsing through a number of images that came under the 'landscape' tag settled on the work of John Constable.

I gained a great deal from the exercise not least because I could relate it directly to some of the work that I had done. For example a couple of possible images for the final submission are of windpumps and windmills where I had taken close ups resulting in the building being taken out of its surroundings. It felt that whilst it was obvious what the objects were they could have been at the side of the M25. Examining Constable's Flatford Mill and other of his works he seems almost always to place the object in context. It was a 'no-brainer' to follow the same path.

Enhancing the image

This first image is the 'RAW' file although as it has been converted to JPEG there will be some changes.

The second image is the product of work both in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) and Photoshop.

With all RAW images I follow the same procedure each time (not always in the same order - senior moments happen!). I start with 'Camera Calibration' to see if any of the settings (e.g. portrait, landscape, neutral etc) offer a more pleasing result. I have the facility to create custom profiles, so for example I have one that I created for a sunny day at the seaside. The profiles offer correct colour and white balance assuming the lighting is the same as when the profile was created. (Unless the colour is absolutely critical e.g the bridesmaids dresses, then the profile offers good results in similar conditions)

I next use 'Lens Correction'. Using the metadata downloaded from the camera with the image the software adjusts the image to correct for known distortion of the lens used. My favourite lens is a 24-70mm so there is some distortion at the edges.

The next is the 'Detail' slider that determines how much the edge areas are affected by sharpening. Matter of personal choice but generally high settings work with architecture and other shots with lots of edges.

All of these have changed the original image in some way, usually subtly. Whether this can be seen as attempting to deceive the viewer is a moot point but in discussion with others it is generally accepted as a legitimate exercise.

The next set of sliders is 'HSL/Grayscale'.  Up until recently I had assumed, mistakenly, that this was solely for use for converting images to grayscale (must have been something in the title). Recently I have learned that it offers much more, particularly in the luminance of colours. The second image above has been changed by adjusting the luminance. The change is particularly noticeable in the colour of the blue sky to the right of the horizon. The colour of the beach has also been altered by darkening the reds and oranges in the image whilst the grass has been lightened by changing the greens and yellows (there is a surprising amount of yellow in grass).

The 'Tone Curve' was another facility to which I adopted a very simplistic approach. I chose either Medium or Strong contrast only occasionally tweaking the curve. Someone suggested to me that I start with the Parametric Curve that offers the opportunity to start from scratch and create your perfect curve using the sliders. I find it particularly useful to keep my eye on the histogram as well as the overall image.

Some of the changes can be significant in the way that the image is altered. I have found in discussion that photographers are more accepting of the practice than non-photographers. For the latter they feel that the changes border on cheating although they do not seem ready yet to throw me into prison.

The 'Basic' panel offers more changes as well as an 'Auto' feature (not bad and always worth trying but sometimes it gets it hopelessly wrong). I use this for final tweaking but I find it a bit of a blunt tool. I also use the tools offered such as the Targeted Adjustment Brush if necessary.

Having done all that I can in ACR I move the image to Photoshop. In the second image I applied a Curves layer to dramatise the clouds and then a gradient as a mask to restore the lightness of the lower part of the image. I also cropped the image to remove the footpath that is in the lower part of the first image.

The argument about cheating at this stage often generates strong views although the tolerance level appears to be an individual thing affected by the nature of the changes and the subject matter of the image. It also seems to be linked with the general moral approach of the person. Personally I am happy to tell people what I have done and sometimes why. The difficulty is when, and this seems to happen more and more, I am accused of manipulation of an image when I have only done the minimum possible or, if I have taken a JPEG image, nothing at all.

DPP Assignment 5 - Review of Progress

The assignment requires that we "draw together all that you have learned and apply it to a personal project."

The first Project for the Course related to Workflow and as I tend to follow the same workflow each time when tackling an assignment I am confident that I did so with this assignment.  However I have to say that I do not carry around a written 'to-do' list so it is an assumption based on a general belief. There have been some changes in the post processing of the images because of further learning about the depth that Photoshop offers. I was watching a training video and the tutor was showing the workflow he used in processing his images. Although I was aware of the existence of the facility that he used (in Camera Raw) I had never used it thinking that it was there for another purpose. How wrong can you be?! Interestingly I was showing colleagues the process used and their reaction was the same.

In my formal workflow (the written down one) I include re-iteration a great deal simply because I find that as I progress new ideas are suggested by the work that I have already done or that I need to re-visit some particular aspect to improve the final result. This going back and forth has been particularly true in working on Assignment 5.

Project 2 related to Digital Image Qualities and I have applied the lessons learned in that element of the Course regularly either in work for the Course or my own personal photography. I noticed on a recent shoot that I had absorbed the ideas to the point that they were 'naturally' incorporated into my work.

Project 3 related to processing the image and it is in this area that I have noticed a significant change as noted above. I invariably shoot in RAW and the ability to do the majority of the processing in ACR plus further learning has enabled me to ensure, for the most part, that I get the best possible result from the information that is available. I particularly enjoy monochrome photography and when choosing what to take I consider whether there is the potential for a monochrome image in what I am seeing. Having said that sometimes the one that I did not see gives the best monochrome result. Currently it is my intention to include a couple of monochrome images in my final submission.

Project 4 "Reality and Intervention" caused me the most trouble as a review of the relevant entries in this blog will show. How I will tackle this element in the final submission is unclear. Having processed many of the images I believe will be in  the final selection there has been enhancement in all of them, some more than others. The 'worst' one in my view is where I removed a small number of people from a shot of a beach to create an empty vista using 'Content Aware'. It is misleading and therefore possibly 'wrong' ethically but I have to ask myself is it more 'wrong' than making the sky more dramatic by using Curves. As I have argued there are no gradations of 'wrong' for me the argument is sterile.

I have finally decided that the subject and treatment will be on 'Man and the Coast'. At this point in time my aim is to contrast the unspoilt coast barely touched by man with the intrusion created by our desire to enjoy our day at the seaside: by the need to prevent the sea literally washing away our belief as to what the seaside should look like; and the exploitation of what the coast has to offer in other ways.

I now need to start making a selection from the images already taken, to select possible candidates for conversion to monochrome and to discover any gaps that have been created as my thinking has developed.

DPP Assignment 5 - Processing the Images

Not usually my favourite pastime but it seemed to go well today. Tried a new workflow using the methods available in the Camera RAW facility that comes with Photoshop. Have used this for a number of years without thinking about whether the tried and tested was really using the software to the full. Viewed a couple of training videos that featured areas that I had not previously considered and after putting them into practice was pleased and amazed by the results. Just goes to show that we should be wary of staying within our comfort zone.

Reviewing what I have done so far for Assignment 5 there are one or two gaps that I need to fill and some parts that need to be tweaked. I suppose it is one of the delights of the work that we do for the assignments that there is time to re-visit the work already carried out and see whether our original thinking still holds or whether the work suggests other paths that need to be followed. (I have just re-read the last sentence which made me realise that I am fortunate that my time is my own and that I can use it largely as I please to get the result I have in mind). It will be interesting to see if the final product is close to my original plan.

As I am now able to 'see' the end of this Course (assuming that I pass) I have turned my thoughts to the next  step on the road to the BA Hons degree. Have decided for my final 1st Level Course to take an elective Course looking at the effect Culture has on the way that we see things. It is something that I have been interested in for a long time and feel that it would be of benefit in my photography.

DPP Assignment 5

Spent much of yesterday taking more photographs for the above assignment. Have firmed up on the project with a working title of 'Man and the Coast'. The intent is to show, within the limitations of the 10 - 12 photographs, how Man has impacted on the Coast through his use of the opportunities that it presents and his attempts to mitigate the dangers that are present.

Given that none of us that live in the UK are never more than 80 miles from the Coast, have a long maritime history and for many of us childhood memories of a 'day at the seaside' it is of general interest to most. From a personal point of view I am of an age where summer holidays were spent somewhere on a beach in Britain and therefore have a whole range of memories, some good and some bad. Over the there have been some significant changes not least the impact of a growing population that has demanded greater use of the resources of the coastal strip whether it is the very obvious building of nuclear power stations or the gradual creep of the provision of facilities, including homes, that are possibly destroying the very thing that people seek by going to the seaside.

I had hoped to discuss this with my tutor but as he is away for the next month I have decided to work on the project with the intention of completing it over the next 5 or 6 weeks. If there is a chance to discuss it all well and good but given other commitments there is no time to change the thrust of the project.

BBC's "Your Paintings"

Came across this by accident. It is an undertaking to catalogue Britain's 200,000 oil paintings (currently 63000 online)  by photographing them and using keywords to allow visitors to the site to find matters of interest. You can help by 'tagging' i.e. in photographers' terms adding keywords.

Can be found at www.bbc.co.uk/arts/yourpaintings.

It is a massive resource for those wanting to view the work of artists in the comfort of their own homes and in their own time. For the student photographer it is a a very real opportunity to examine artistic works over the centuries and see how the Masters tackled such things as composition, use of light etc..