Graffiti, for some; art, a way of expression, to others; intolerable slander. It's through the eyes of the beholder that makes the difference, but isn't all art a form of expression no matter who makes it. Do we as a society see graffiti as slander because we associate it with gangs? The context of how graffiti is viewed might be different if it was popular among young white females.

You can't deny that there is some talent behind graffiti, but can we deny that there's more than just people doing it for the sake of vandalization.

 This picture looks almost similar to that of a child's driveway after they're done playing with chalk, only it's spray paint and this cement is someone else's property. "vandals" may view it as open space, a pallet to express themselves. We call a child's driveway a work of art, this picture may deserve the same credibility.

We should tag it as graffiti and vandalism if it's causing someone distress. If you don't like rap music, turn it off, if you don't like a painting, don't look at it and if you don't like graffiti, paint over it.

What makes graffiti, graffiti? If it's painted on the side of a building or a train car does someone automatically dub it graffiti or do you see a message when you look at this picture or any of the others.?

Guide to Spirituality

America, seen through photographs, darkly

Arbus's photographs are mostly taken straight on, in a way to make the person look more deranged. I think the point of the photos looking this way is for them to look sort of odd, but also too look sincere in a way that we feel badly for them. Arbus's photographs are of images that appear "grotesque" to the social norm of what many consider beautiful. I think the purpose of the people in these photographs looking straight forward is so the viewer is forced to look into their eyes and see straight into their soul like Arbus did with these people. Their eyes are probably meant to be expressive so that the viewer gets a sense of who they are and like the pictures of LUNPFM, we feel sorry for these people. Because the people in the photograph are real people when we look into their eyes and they look sad and ugly it makes us feel sorry for them and connect to them in that way, because there have been times when we've all felt sad and ugly. I think Arbus wants you to relate to these people in that they may be ugly at first glance but looking into their stares we find value in that persons life and in turn beauty.

America,Seen through photographs Darkly 27-37

Sontag talks alot about Walt Whitman and the differences between beauty and ugliness. There seems to be a struggle with photographers and their viewers between what is meant to be seen as beautiful and what is meant to be seen as ugly. On pg 28 it is said " There is probably no subject that cant be beautified; moreover , there is no way to suppress the tendency inherent in all photographs to accord value to their subjects. but the meaning of all value itself can be altered-" i took this to mean that beauty can be found in whats valuable. photographers capture something of value to them and that valuable moment person or thing personifies beauty. Later, on pg 33 the diffrence between beauty and ugliness is discussed between the photographs of Steichen and Arbus. Steichan sees humanity as "one" where as Arbus takes pictures of  "assorted monsters" and calims humanity is not "one." I think Steichen sees humanity as "one" and finds beauty in everything because what he sees in photographs he finds valuable and whats valuable has beauty and that's why it was photographed. The photos Arbus took i think are valuable as well and therefore you could also find beauty in them.

Eggleston paper source

One source my group used was one I found called " The Banner that Wont Stay Furled." This source is about the debate in Mississippi about changing the the state flag , The Confederate Flag. Other southern states, such as South Carolina and Georgia decided to change their flags as more people were for it rather than against it, such as they were in Mississippi. In Mississippi they looked at the Confederate flag as a symbol of  "individualism and heritage."  I found this interesting and relatable to Eggleston in that he grew up in Mississippi and most of his photos were shot there.

I would relate this article to southern culture because for Mississippi the Confederate flag was a huge part of their culture and identity. Eggleston himself said that his pictures were in part related to the Confederate and this makes sense has he grew up with this strong influence and heritage of the confederacy. The confederate flag is a symbol of southern culture, even today and I believe that is something Eggleston wants to portray and hold honor to in his photos.

Thesis Statements

1. Susan Sontag talks about photographs as a talisman. A piece of time captured that connects you to a moment of your life. This idea of a talisman could be Eggleston's meaning behind his photographs. His childhood in the south is whats being represented in these photos. People, places and things he at one time was connected to and these photos keep him in that moment in his life. The truth of a photo is whats captured out of a million possible photos that could be taken in your surroundings, and Eggleston chose his photographs strategically. You could take any one of his photographs and make a story of its meaning in any direction, maybe that's what Eggleston wants. Not only do these pictures serve as a talisman to his past, but maybe to yours as well. Maybe we are intended to look at these photos as a glimpse into Eggleston's life but also as a glimpse into our own.

 2. Simplicity of the everyday life; A child's bike, or a the serenity of a cemetery against a blue sky. Are these images what they seem or is there more. John Szarkowski seems to think these images are as they seem : simple. The viewer is intended to see jut what the photograph is, not to read into it and make up a story or a reason for the photo but just to simply enjoy the scene. Maybe Eggleston truly had no reason for taking these photos rather than for the pure pleasure of photography. These photos are so simple-minded that anyone could capture them and that's quite possibly all Eggleston wanted to do. Everyone has passed by something aesthetically pleasing to them that they wish they could take a photo of just to remember the beauty of that object.The pure excitement of taking a picture with absolutely no story or reason behind it. These photos could have no reason behind them at all but to please a viewer with simple taste.

Susan Sontag : Plato's Cave

Cara Cole

2/3/11

Plato’s Cave

            "A picture is worth a thousand words." I never quite understood this saying until reading Susan Sontag, On Photography: Plato’s cave. Sontag takes the art of photography and explains each realm this art form truly reaches. She discusses how a picture, more than a film or literature, tells the truth. The truth behind a photograph is something we discussed before in class and Sontag takes it much further. The truth can mean many different things, the truth of a photograph are “miniature realities” as Sontag says and that can mean anything from a crime scene photo to just the truth behind the meaning of Eggleston’s photos.  Sontag sheds light on every aspect of photography, ranging from family photo albums to war photos from Vietnam. She describes a knowledge the photographer has over the person being photographed as “To photograph people is to violate them, by seeing them as they never see themselves…” This is one knowledge the photographer has over the image but she also describes photographers as having knowledge over their viewer.

            Sontag describes photography as “ it means putting oneself into a certain relation to the world that feels like knowledge-and, therefore power.” I believe by the truth of a photo she means there are two truths, the truth the photographer knows and the truth the viewer sees. When you think about it as the viewer your ideas are pure speculation unless you were to ask the photographer what was meant to be known as the truth in that photo. Sontag describes having that knowledge as the photographer as power and supports her idea at the end of the chapter by saying “nevertheless, the camera’s rendering of reality must always hide more than it discloses.” We, as the viewer see a different reality from the photographer, they’re knowledge of the truth of the photo keeps their power over us.