#semivan

Well, shipping fodder mostly.

But what ship, you ask?

Perhaps most of you will say Lewvi. That's expected. But it's not that.

Maybe some of you may say Vithur. That's predictable, but no, not that either.

And to those chanting Lewthur, today is not your day.

Let me introduce you to...

Pubg Mobile

Check it out 👀🔥👇

youtu.be/haxQCV3u0Zo

In the article The Directorial Mode: notes Toward a Definition by A.D. Coleman, the writer discusses the philosophical clashes between style and technique. Coleman addresses the differences that separate certain approaches to photography and the conflicts that emerge from those choices. For example, introducing his first debate, Coleman argues the medium's fight to overcome skepticism as an unsuitable form of creative activity. He goes on to point out the public's willingness to view photographs for their wide range of subjects and suggests the problem isn't a lack of audience but a lack of certain incentives: prestige, power, and money.

Photo by Alfred Stieglitz

Further examining the people who championed photography into an acceptable art form, Coleman credits photographer and aristocrat Alfred Stieglitz with leading the medium and pushing it towards a form of High (Salon) Art. At the time, High Art was considered and depicted through the use of subject matter like livestock, sturdy peasants, and techniques that rendered fuzziness. From these efforts, appeared a new style of photography referred to as Pictorialism, known for it's ability to generate radical forms of visual expression. Coleman writes, "People believe photographs," and argues their blind faith in images that sprang from the idea of seeing is believing. If seeing is believing, than reality is undeniable and few people ever question that what they're viewing could actually be false evidence. The audience interacts with these images and therefore also interacts with the photographer's own sensibility, whatever his or her intent.

"The Home of a Rebel Sharpshooter" by Alexander Gardner

Coleman defends the photographer's right to stage or "direct" events. Directorial photography only requires the viewer to suspend their belief, not give into it. Working under this kind of criteria, a photographer's prerogative to arrange subjects, models, objects and lighting in order to create a mood or theme is considered directorial by nature. The nuances of the image come from the photographer's artful interpretation of fictitious events. Usually these staged images have a conceptual idea driving them and inform the audience of an opinion or critique on an issue important to the artist. When i think of this style of photography, I'm reminded of an image by Alexander Gardner who moved the body of a fallen Confederate soldier to improve the composition. The purity of photography vs. photography that's been altered to create a different mood or portrayal of events is, as Coleman suggests, a source of contention with a lot of critics. Not withstanding this argument, he points out that photography is only a means. He believes as many do that whatever methods the photographer is privy to in order to create an image, should be at the disposal of the image maker. The choices associated with this way of working refers to Pictorialism in another light and awards full creative control to the artist. Finally, Coleman reveals the fall of pictorialism to purists of the photographic medium and discusses it's pitfalls and influences. Photography is seen as a purist form of communication until after the 1960s when a younger generation of photographers begin to revive it as an untapped art form. Having preserved the tradition of Pictorialism, the writer credits Les Krims and Duane Michals as pioneers of their generation for the support of pictorial techniques. Coleman plainly draws a connection between the history of photography and the ignorance of it's practitioners who create boundaries between themselves and fine artists. He feels that it's foolish of both sides to deny their similarities and creative intelligences that inform each other's work.

Image by Jerry Ulesmann

In Chapters 1, 2, and 3 of Criticizing Photographs by Terry Barrett, the author dispels the notion that criticism is primarily a way to negatively critique and belittle artwork. Instead, Barrett suggests that criticism serves to inform an audience and the general public about the value of the art and the appreciation of it's form. By introducing popular critics in news media, art forums, and international platforms, Barrett gives us a very open and honest lesson in the many ways "critics" disseminate art using the written word or a set of guidelines set up by the publication they write in service to.

For example, in the chapter 1 section that refers to Sources of Criticism, editorial critic Kay Larson for New York Magazine outlines her process by saying she chooses her topics based off what interests her. If she feels she has something thoughtful to expound on she does so in order to draw more attention to the art (whatever the medium). In doing so, she is able to single out art that deserves another kind of platform of exposure vs. art she has very little to comment on. In particular, the writer/critic who grabbed my attention the most in Chapter 1 was Morris Weitz an aesthetician interested in art criticism. Weitz researched the nature of Criticism by systematically breaking down literary reviews for one of Shakespeare's most celebrated works: Hamlet. He found that when writers and critics criticize, they do one of 4 things: they describe the art, they interpret it, they evaluate it, and finally, they theorize it. What's interesting about this is the underlying process. Here Weitz has uncovered a system for organizing and explaining a piece of art using 4 very basic and direct principals. This technique allows anyone the ability to adapt it to their writing and aids the critic in making an informed opinion about the subject.

In chapter 2, Barrett moves onto the nature of describing a photograph and the challenges that confront the audience when they try to do this. He poses the questions that concern the on-looker most: What is here? What am i looking at? What do i know with certainty about this image? Its implied that when considering an exhibition of photography, the objective of the critic is to inform the audience not only about the artist's intentions but the things one needs to know in order to see it: Who? What? When? Where? Why? Reviews that fail to disclose this information from the beginning of the article could leave their readers disinterested and misinformed. One of the writers mentioned in this chapter— Douglass Davis, a contributor to Newsweek Magazine— uses a good deal of literary devices to describe a portraits exhibit by the photographer Richard Avedon. He adds that Avedon's triptychs of a face split into 3 compelling compositions feels to him "hypnotic and arresting" and goes onto refer to the expression of the subject(s). What interests me is the way Davis has carefully crafted his choice of words to help paint a visual picture for his readers and how he points out the level of detail executed in Avedon's images. My guess is that Davis intends to leave his reader's enamored and hungry for the opportunity to visit the show in order to arrive at their own conclusions. The remainder of the chapter goes onto discuss the differences between photographic mediums, forms and subject matters used to delineate between different methods of criticism.