Author Archives: Miranda

Photography – Context

Posted on by under Photography, WRONG

How important is context in Photography? Referencing the picture “Wrong!” by John Baldessari, can a ‘bad’ picture ever be great? (“Context”)

Intro

Context – why a picture was taken, when or where it was taken and what message you were trying to make (“Context”)

Context and Art in general

In modern conceptual art, I think context becomes extremely important in what makes a picture great and, more broadly, what makes something a piece of art. For example, Marcel Duchamp’s “Fountain”, an art piece consisting of a porcelain urinal signed “R.Mutt” (Wikipedia contributors). Are urinals art? We don’t walk into a bathroom and say, “Wow, look at that amazing art!” but because of the context and intellectual process behind the urinal, it is now a symbol of conceptual art (Wikipedia contributors).

 

“Fountain” (replica) originally by Marcel Duchamp, 1917

Similarly, context in a photograph can emphasize on the journey behind the photograph. Photography is all about capturing the moments, and that can entail grueling travel and hours crouching in the extreme, waiting for the perfect moment. Context provided can highlight the journey behind the photo, making it of more value. The journey behind a photo also involves the thought process behind the piece, and that can highlight subtle themes and messages embedded in the piece. In some cases, this can make the difference between a simply amateur photo, and a skillfully taken image that was borne out of careful consideration.

Can “bad” art be “great”?

(the photograph attached is “Wrong” taken by John Baldessari in 1967)

Yes, it can.

“WRONG” John Baldessari, 1967

A lot of good art is defined by its context, rather than its aesthetic appearance. Does an acrylic painting of a ubiquitous soup can show more skill than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa? (“Andy Warhol. Campbell’s”) Maybe not, but the idea behind the photograph and the societal values it challenged made it a great piece of art, and Campbell’s soup cans are as much of a household name as the oil paintings of the old masters (“Andy Warhol. Campbell’s”). In this case, the context offered by John Baldessari, “Wrong!”, shows that he knew his photograph was “Wrong” and that he was breaking the rules of photography (Baldessari). This makes his photograph different from all your botched amateur photography attempts (for example, when you had ISO and exposure in the wrong setting) because he was a skilled photographer who considered the rules of the photography world and intentionally challenged the status quo (Baldessari). In this case, with the context offered, Baldessari knows the rules, and he isn’t a bad photographer; he is breaking the rules with style through careful consideration of composition, camera settings, and presentation. It shows that he knows ideas regarding alignment, balanced compositions, and lighting, but chose to reject them (Baldessari). Considering Baldessari’s vow “I will not make any more boring art”, the context adds value to the artwork (Bonjour Supermarché). Based on this, we can understand that Baldessari was actively challenging the arts scene; perhaps all the people around him were too stringent on following the ‘rules of photography’ that their photographs were not inventive, did not challenge the status quo, and seemed ‘boring’. This makes the photograph so much more captivating, thematically interesting, and impactful.

However, the audience would only be able to appreciate the ingenuity of the thought process with the context in place. Without context, we would easily misunderstand; we would think that Marcel Duchamp was crazy and that we are better at taking photos than John Baldessari.

Works Cited

Andy Warhol. The Museum of Modern Art, https://www.moma.org/collection/works/79809.
Baldessari, John “Wrong” Photograph. Dragon’s Exchange, ISB. Accessed 22nd August 2024, https://dx.isb.cn/dash/#/classroom/648607/sections/lesson/344114/page/344116/edit, 23 August 2024.

Bonjour Supermarché. “A Brief History of John Baldessari.” YouTube, 15 May 2012, www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU7V4GyEuXA.

“Context – its about the title – Blog Post 1” ISB, https://dx.isb.cn/dash/#/classroom/648607/sections/lesson/344114/page/344116. Accessed 23 August 2024.

“Fountain (Duchamp).” Wikipedia, 2 May 2024. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fountain_(Duchamp)&oldid=1221884150.

Tate. “‘Fountain‘, Marcel Duchamp, 1917, Replica 1964 | Tate.” Tate, www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/duchamp-fountain-t07573.

The World Scholar’s Cup. https://themes.scholarscup.org/#/themes/2024/guidingquestions. Accessed 23 Aug. 2024.

Film Noir Analysis – Sunset Boulevard

Posted on by under film studies

Tropes and Elements within Sunset Boulevard (excluding the femme fatale)

Sunset Boulevard uses cinematography techniques, particularly chiaroscuro lighting, to create an ominous sense of foreboding throughout the whole film. Norma’s house is heavily antiquated, with ornate furnishings and candles providing uneven lighting. Even before Norma reveals herself to be deeply mentally disturbed, the harsh contrast in lighting makes the audience feel uneasy and Sunset Boulevard gives off a sinister impression. Paired with other elements such as the large metal gates, Norma’s house gives off an almost gothic prison like feel, which is reflective of how Joe feels when he begins to be trapped in Norma’s hold.

Speaking of Joe, although he’s not a detective, Joe Gillis is the epitome of the hard-boiled cynic featured in so many Noir Films. He has an excellently sarcastic narrative voice, with lines that jab at the movie industry such as “that’s where the popcorn business comes in. You buy yourself a bag and plug up your ears”. Even when narrating the scene of his own death, he sounds matter of fact. As the main character of the movie, Joe Gillis reflects many worries of society during that time. As a struggling writer in Hollywood that used to be considered talented but now has no inspiration, he reflects the economic hardship, uncertainty, and post-war disillusionment of much of society. Through accepting his role as Norma’s gigolo for a “shortcut” out of poverty, he also reflects the film noir trope of character’s dealing with the dark side of society out of desperation and greed. (although I’m pretty sure most noir characters committed crime rather than enter inappropriate relationships with a much older woman). Joe and all other characters (basically the whole Sunset Boulevard story) are also chock full of post-war pessimism. The whole affair centered around Joe and Norma (but also involving Max and Betty) is a moral gray ground, where it is unclear who is the controller and the controlled. Furthermore, although Joe arguable redeems himself by deciding to leave Norma at the end of the film, he spends most of the film unheroically leeching off Norma’s wealth and obsession with him. The whole film is also a critique on the Hollywood industry, making jabs at the transition from silent to sound films, depicting struggling writers and actors, and of course, showing Norma’s descent into madness that begins from her ungraceful fall out of fame in Hollywood.

Femme Fatale – Norma Desmond

The Femme Fatale is a character archetype that appears in several Noir Films, including Sunset Boulevard. Traditionally, a femme fatale is a “mysterious, beautiful, and seductive woman whose charms ensnare her lovers, often leading them into…deadly traps” (Wikipedia contributors). Faded film star Norma Desmond can be considered the femme fatale. When Joe first stumbles upon Sunset Boulevard, Norma appears as a mysterious, wealthy lady. Like most femme fatales, she is strong willed and confident, getting what she wants. Once she has set her mind on Joe, she demands him to stay to read her manuscript, and prepares a room for him in the afternoon, knowing that she can guide their interactions to lead to him staying over.

During Joe’s stay in Sunset Boulevard, Norma is controlling, treating Joe like a pet. Like traditional tropes involving the femme fatale, Joe walks a thin line with his interactions with Norma, believing that he has the upper hand on the situation, only to pay the ultimate price for getting involved too deep with this femme fatale.

However, Norma’s “charms” and “wiles” cannot keep him from being attracted to younger woman Betty Schaefer. Consequently, if we strip back the lethal, controlling façade of Norma Desmond, all that is left are aging and rotten illusions. Although Norma aims to seduce Joe, the main reason he stays with Norma is her wealth, calling her “foolish and very generous”, which implies that he benefits off her generous spending. If not for the comfort of life she supplies Joe, he would have left Norma for Betty, which with whom he has much more chemistry and shared interest. In turn, Norma begins to feel insecure, on multiple occasions begging Joe to stay, and trying to entertain him.

Norma appears to be less mysterious and more vulnerable. Max explains that the house is kept lock, sleeping pill, and razor free to prevent Norma’s relapse of suicide attempts during “moments of melancholy”.  She is kept in an echo chamber by Max and later Joe where she believes that she is the greatest star, and that the whole of Hollywood is waiting for her comeback. Whenever Joe attempts to challenge and shatter her illusions, she becomes angry, and subsequently mad. In the end, although Joe dies because of her, it’s not because she is totally in power and control of the situation and manipulates/blackmails him to his downfall. Rather, she loses all power and control over the situation with Joe and over her own sanity and shoots him.

Thus, the character of Norma Desmond combines both traditional elements of the femme fatale with a new spin. Joe’s choice to stay with her because of her money highlights themes in Sunset Boulevard such as manipulation. Juxtaposing Norma’s control of Joe yet apparent mental delusions about her current situation shows the cruelty of Hollywood draining their stars and then abandoning them, and how dangerous lies can be.

 

 

 

Film Review: Inception

Posted on by under film studies, fun

Ever had a dream that felt uncanny or woken up from a dream with a dizzying jolt? The occurrence of dreams is far from groundbreaking, but in his 2010 Action movie, director Christopher Nolan turns our extra-ordinary dreams into an extraordinary cinematic experience, questioning the audience’s understanding of dreams and reality.

Acclaimed Leonardo di Caprio plays the main character, Dom Cobb, who enters subjects’ dreams to obtain their secrets. However, he is an international fugitive separated from his family. He is offered redemption if he can attempt the impossible “inception” — planting an idea within someone’s mind. As Cobb and his team navigate different layers of dreams to pull off their heist, Cobb will realize that their adversaries lie not only within the target’s mind – but within his own.

Cobb’s team plans to conduct the Inception within layered dreams, with time in each subsequent dreamscape running faster. Christopher Nolan exerts masterful control over cross-cutting to stitch “layers” of the dream that unfold simultaneously together. He also uses slow-motion shots to demonstrate the different speeds at which action unfolds, keeping tension taut. This unique dream mechanism is captivating but may leave the audience wondering which level of the dream they are in and wanting a rewatch, which is also part of the charm of Inception.

The mise-en-scene is a delicate balance of dream and reality; while many filmmakers would use a dreamscape to explore a wonderland-like concept, Nolan’s dreamworld seamlessly blends dream and reality. The visual effects of the scenes are stunning, with a road bending upwards, a 0 gravity hotel corridor, and a paradoxical penrose “impossible” stair in an office. With characters immersed in surreal yet photorealistic scenes, the film poses a question central to the movie’s theme:  is this a dream or reality?

The plotting and pacing display similar attention to balance, with Nolan carefully balancing worldbuilding versus plot development and thrills versus character development. While action films are stereotyped as stuffed with fight sequences, explosions, and car chases, Inception retains the thrill of a “heist” style action movie while also depicting the compelling development of Cobb as he deals with the ghosts of his past. Nolan’s script is also compact and coherent. Simple dialogue between Cobb and Mal appears perfunctory but becomes central to Cobb’s character development. Small details are all revisited and shown to be significant; as parts of the story click into place, the audience is left feeling in awe of Nolan’s knack for storytelling. The introductory act is also compact, with several fight scenes and plot twists. This adheres to genre conventions by thrusting the audience into action while effectively introducing viewers to features of the ‘dream-sharing’ technology of “Inception.”

Inception is an ambitious action movie, but it manages to retain the thrill of action movies while provoking thought. However, it does require the audience to pay a lot of attention to the movie.

At least for me, Inception felt exactly like a good dream: just the right length but leaving me wanting more.

I Did Not do It on Purpose: Historical Bias and Marie Antoinette

Posted on by under Uncategorized

16 October 1793

Marie-Antoinette, in full Marie Antoinette-Josèphe-Jeanne d’Autriche-Lorraine (Austria-Lorraine), originally German Maria Antonia Josepha Joanna von Österreich-Lothringen, was sent to the guillotines. Her last words were: “I did not do it on purpose”, after she stepped on the foot of her executioner.

Present

The French at the time of the French revolution and many people today still view Marie Antoinette as “Madame Defecit”. Many believe her apathy and frivolous and lavish spendings regardless of France’s financial system led to the downfall of the French empire. We also know her as the infamous speaker of the quote “let them eat cake”

Truth or bias?

However, Marie Antoinette was not the villain history framed her to be. The vast ocean of history is often disrupted, and while no source relating to history is perfect, some are more biased than others. For example, the much quoted phrase “Let them eat Cake” is often credited to Marie Antoinette. Many condemn her based on this sentence. However, this phrase was never uttered by her. According to Britannica, this quote had been circulating in other parts of the world, with varying details. The first person whom published this exact phrase was the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in book VI of “Confessions” (1767). However, according to Wikipedia, not only was Marie-Antoinette only 14 at that time, she was also living outside of France. And besides that, according to Britannica, the earliest known source connecting the quote with Marie Antoinette was more than 50 years after the revolution. (Here is the source)

The “Villain” Backstory

Marie Antoinette was married to Louis XVI as an inter-country alliance. Due to already-existing hostilities, when the 15 year old Austrian princess arrived in the French court, Marie Antoinette became the subject of slanders and ridicules, even being put into pornographic pamphlets. These ridicules ranged from her difficult relationship with her husband, as well as other stories such as the “Affair of the Diamond Necklace” (Oversimplified history, the French Revolution)

Perhaps, Marie Antoinette was not a cruel individual, but rather a foreigner that found it difficult to adapt to French customs. Her husband’s personal weakness and political ineptness was what eventually led Marie Antoinette to play a more prominent political role. At this case, she may have opposed reforms and revolutions, however it does not seem to have been done with malice or intentionally.

Was she really selfish?

Other sources may characterize her as frivolous and a large spender, even when france was in financial crisis. This is true, however her lavish spendings were not the whole reason why france was led to financial downfall. One could quote Louis’ large fundings towards the American Revolution among all.

Who was she?

I would also like to present an alternate view on Marie Antoinette. Her brother, Emperor Joseph 11, described her as “honest and lovable”, and according to mental floss dot com, Marie Antoinette had founded a home for unwed mothers, visited and gave food to poor families, and during the 1787 famine, sold off royal flatware to buy grain for those in need. Besides that, she also adopted several children, and these included the child of a maid who had died, and three children of a deceased usherer. In her last letters, her thoughts only went to her children, writing to her sister that it grieved her to leave her children.

Not a winner in the end

As with her husband, Louis Capet, Marie Antoinette was sentenced to jail and later the guillotine. Her children were also imprisoned, and according to “history.com”, her 8 year old child was forced to testify that his mother molested him. She died on 16 October 1793.

Hero or villain?

To me, Marie Antoinette was no villain. A villain could be most typically characterized as an individual whom actively works to provoke, hurt, and oppress citizens, mostly those of little power; however Marie Antoinette did none of these, and in fact, many allegations made against her were French propaganda and misled claims.

Therefore, it is quite clear that Marie Antoinette was not a villain, however she was also like a hero. Although like a hero she cared for her children and orphans whom were being oppressed, in the end she was unable to put these worries of  hers into action. Her last days ended with a whimper, rather than a bang, not able to do anything to save her son.
In the end, her death was not something to cheer for, like the Parisian crowd did so many years ago. Marie Antoinette, and to much extent her husband, were two immature, inexperienced teenagers thrust into the two big shoes of their predecessors (which is kind of the whole issue with primogeniture); and sadly, this would not be the last time a couple met such a cruel fate, as seen from the last of the Romanovs. (I think it’s been said that empress Alexandra Romanov found Marie Antoinette to be a parallel of herself, both young princesses in a foreign court that despised them, with husbands that were not fit for the throne. She also predicted she would die a violent death like Marie Antoinette, and guess what happened. ) (INTERESTING BLOG  tying parallels between Marie Antoinette and Alexandra Romanov, as well as more background information on Marie Antoinette. However, there doesn’t seem to be a citation page, so tried to refrain from using any information raised)
Therefore, I would call Marie Antoinette a human, a human who made mistakes but still cared for those that she loved, rather than a Villain or a Hero.

Welcome to Your New Blog!

Posted on by under Myself as a Learner

When you blog you create posts and posts are categorised according to your subject. Some categories have already been set up for you. If you need more categories you can add them as needed. It’s important that your posts have the following:

  • An engaging title – this should not include the name of the subject since this is referenced in the category.
  • Body – this is where you share your learning. This can include text, images, embedded videos from Dragons’ Tube or elsewhere. You should always consider how your post looks to your audience. Is it engaging? Do they want to keep reading?
  • Category – select one that has been set for you or add a new category. Posts can have more than one category e.g. Humanities and Myself as a Learner

Click on the images below to learn more about blogging:

 

 

Skip to toolbar