From first glance, this definitely does not like composite scanned images. But that is, of course, the point! It really makes you question what is the definition of a photograph (feel like this has been said SO many times) but a photograph (according to the latin translation: photo-light, graph-to draw) is simply just drawing with light, and can be obtained with or without the use of a camera. I like that Gordon is playing with that concept with commonplace, household items, thus giving the ordinary and overlooked a visually stimulating presence.
There's something off-kilter about these photos. Like Bridget said, they make you question what you're looking at. I looked at some of his other work, he has some "portraits", and I say that because they're actual photos of things, made into mismatched collages, and I know my first instinct was to go " that looks real, it was at some point, but it's so surreal there must be something more to it." He's able to manipulate his compositions in a way that distorts reality, you can't take anything for granted.
Well, all of these look real and as Bridget said, that's the point. Constructing a 3d image from a 2d plane is a difficult task but these photos show success. At first glance these look like ordinary objects but when the viewer really looks at them, they notice that there's something off. Maybe its that slight reduction of detail, or the flatness that the objects seem to have. What is most interesting to me is that this crosses the line between photography and installation. These are interesting photographs but I think it would be much cooler to see these in person, perhaps on display at a museum.
At first glance, the images almost look like paintings because even though they are realistic, there is still something strange about them. I think it's really interesting how one can scan a bunch of different objects and still get them to look like one cohesive photo, and that makes you think more about the photo than if it were real, and not a composite of scans. This relates to what we did in class last week, because we were able to scan whatever objects we had with us, which may have all been unrelated, yet some of the images that were created didn't look random at all.
Quite honestly, I didn't know scanning and composing camera-less images were possible up until our first class. These images take it to a completely different level. I'm very interested and intrigued to find out how he has made these images without many flaws. The angles play with your eye, and get you questioning. The shadows really help create that "realistic" look. Without learning and completing the process from last class, I would have been stumped by how Gordon created this look. Its a nice change of pace from what we see everyday.
I will also agree with Bridget, these crisp composed images do not look like scans at first. But a second look definitely shows that there is more to the image. I find it very interesting that a combination of scans can be looked at in such different ways and make the viewer ask questions such as "what am I looking at?" I enjoyed seeing how my grouping of scans created one image and how many ways it was interpreted by my classmates. I found it interesting how everyone took their scans to different levels and showed their own personality through a composed image.
I guess there really isn't much to say other than yes, this is what we have been playing with in class and it's refreshing to see that an image that could look so ordinary and as "one" is a composite of many different images. I find it fascinating.
Even as a thumbnail, I knew that the image was a false reality. The way that the artist scans the image then cuts and composites the image back to look like it's "real" form makes the everyday scene of the whole image more intriguing that it actually is. Overall Gordon's objects look seamless and it is interesting how he creates an illusion of folds in the tissue paper with a comparison of crumpled paper below the tissue box in the third image.
From first glance, this definitely does not like composite scanned images. But that is, of course, the point! It really makes you question what is the definition of a photograph (feel like this has been said SO many times) but a photograph (according to the latin translation: photo-light, graph-to draw) is simply just drawing with light, and can be obtained with or without the use of a camera. I like that Gordon is playing with that concept with commonplace, household items, thus giving the ordinary and overlooked a visually stimulating presence.
ReplyDeleteThere's something off-kilter about these photos. Like Bridget said, they make you question what you're looking at. I looked at some of his other work, he has some "portraits", and I say that because they're actual photos of things, made into mismatched collages, and I know my first instinct was to go " that looks real, it was at some point, but it's so surreal there must be something more to it." He's able to manipulate his compositions in a way that distorts reality, you can't take anything for granted.
ReplyDeleteWell, all of these look real and as Bridget said, that's the point. Constructing a 3d image from a 2d plane is a difficult task but these photos show success. At first glance these look like ordinary objects but when the viewer really looks at them, they notice that there's something off. Maybe its that slight reduction of detail, or the flatness that the objects seem to have. What is most interesting to me is that this crosses the line between photography and installation. These are interesting photographs but I think it would be much cooler to see these in person, perhaps on display at a museum.
ReplyDeleteAt first glance, the images almost look like paintings because even though they are realistic, there is still something strange about them. I think it's really interesting how one can scan a bunch of different objects and still get them to look like one cohesive photo, and that makes you think more about the photo than if it were real, and not a composite of scans. This relates to what we did in class last week, because we were able to scan whatever objects we had with us, which may have all been unrelated, yet some of the images that were created didn't look random at all.
ReplyDeleteQuite honestly, I didn't know scanning and composing camera-less images were possible up until our first class. These images take it to a completely different level. I'm very interested and intrigued to find out how he has made these images without many flaws. The angles play with your eye, and get you questioning. The shadows really help create that "realistic" look. Without learning and completing the process from last class, I would have been stumped by how Gordon created this look. Its a nice change of pace from what we see everyday.
ReplyDeleteI will also agree with Bridget, these crisp composed images do not look like scans at first. But a second look definitely shows that there is more to the image. I find it very interesting that a combination of scans can be looked at in such different ways and make the viewer ask questions such as "what am I looking at?"
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed seeing how my grouping of scans created one image and how many ways it was interpreted by my classmates. I found it interesting how everyone took their scans to different levels and showed their own personality through a composed image.
I guess there really isn't much to say other than yes, this is what we have been playing with in class and it's refreshing to see that an image that could look so ordinary and as "one" is a composite of many different images. I find it fascinating.
ReplyDeleteEven as a thumbnail, I knew that the image was a false reality. The way that the artist scans the image then cuts and composites the image back to look like it's "real" form makes the everyday scene of the whole image more intriguing that it actually is. Overall Gordon's objects look seamless and it is interesting how he creates an illusion of folds in the tissue paper with a comparison of crumpled paper below the tissue box in the third image.
ReplyDelete