Reading Questions for 9/30 & 10/2

3 Questions on McKee Reading

1. Heidi McKee’s essay on sound applies quite specifically to sound in internet multimedia projects, as it states in the title. Would the same apply to an internet sound clip without visual integration or ability to pause the sound? What if the clip was 1 minute long and gave the listener no chance to alter its volume or stop or start it? Wouldn’t sounds work together as effectively?
2. McKee mentions that sound and visual elements of web presentations are taken simultaneously by the viewer, but are treated separately by the computer. This is very noticeable with a poor connection: the sound plays flawlessly while the images are lagged and often pause. What does this say about programming? Why is sound given the priority? Is it easier to follow the meaning with clear sound and garbled images or vice versa?
3. McKee also mentions silence and it appears to be one of her bigger issues. But she clearly doesn’t mean silence in the sense of no sound at all. She means silence as the absence of previously heard (sometimes unconsciously) sounds. Does this mean the introduction of the absence of a previously heard sound is as noticeable as the introduction of a previously unheard sound/noise? Should it be as important?

Readings for 9/23 & 9/25

Readings for 9/23 & 9/25

1. By observing in Elkins’ essay “How to Look at a Postage Stamp” the detail in which he describes the stamps themselves, it is clear that the author intends his readers to view other objects this way, potentially everything. How can this case be made if every detail of daily life should be given this much attention? Aren’t some details mundane? Some details supposed to be looked over? (e.g. the counterfeiting deterrents)
2. If the same argument is applied again, wouldn’t that much attention to detail bog down daily life into a lack of forward progress? If someone were to reach the stage of admiring all details, wouldn’t that inherently prevent him/her from seeing other details? Perhaps missing the other 99% of everything…
3. It is clear that James Elkins finds the detail in stamps fascinating, both in their own artistic right and their commonly overlooked status. As he uses these as an example, does it seem somewhat counteractive to his intention? So much time spent on stamps makes it seem like he’s writing an essay completely about stamps and not about How to Use Your Eyes.

Questions for Readings Week 4

Questions for 9/16 & 9/18, 2008

1. McCloud’s stylistic essay done in the guise of a comic strip, points out the difference between the “conceptual” world and the “sensual” world by exploring the difference between the [generally] more abstract character as opposed to his/her more detailed background. We as an audience cannot experience these surroundings first-hand, just with our visual idea of it, similarly to our experience of the character, though the character may be more easily relatable through simplicity. This provokes the argument: doesn’t the background still essentially remain conceptual?
2. McCloud’s description of Japanese comics creating most protagonists as fairly simple, while characters meant to be seen as “others” are drawn with relative complexity. Does this carry with it the possibility of a belief of, “if it’s not me its something else and inherently frightening/inferior?”
3. Berger’s work mentions the concept that publicity suggests the present is undesirable and that the viewer needs something better, whereas the language of oil painting suggests the subject has something the viewer likely wants. Both types address the idea of social envy, why then does publicity commonly receive such a poor reputation? Both imply the viewer needs something more to be better. Is publicity just more transparent? More pushy?
   
   

P.S. I found McCloud’s essay/comic to be the easiest work to read in a very long time. I was just wondering if anyone else found it more enjoyable to read than the typically sterile essay in mere text…???

Readings for 9/9 & 9/11

3 questions on Lauer and Pentak reading:

1. Does the concept of visual training and “re-training” force us to turn an analytic or even cynic lense on the stock images of our cultural history or does it apply only when viewing items of artistic value?
2. The two points of view brought about by the discussion of artist Eva Hesse imply 1) that art comes from a creator and 2) art comes from materials. The first point of view seems intuitive, but how can the second make sense? Doesn’t art need a creator, even if it is nature?
3. This article suggests that many symbols lose or change their meaning when they cross boundaries (national, ethnic, etc.) but does that negate any possibility of symbols with inherent meaning? Example: a smiling face.