Kendall Buster Response

With Buster's work it doesn't take a lot of background knowledge to understand the work. The pieces she put together are not pieces that have a historical background. They are just pieces she put together because she wanted to. She created them herself therefore it's easier to see what they are used for and see how they are being used.
She makes a lot of pieces that the audience can interact with. The lighting and the size of the work really comes into play when she displays the work. The texture of most of her work is smooth with some ridges. They almost look like paper lanterns. Her work is more interactive so that may be why I like it better than the first pieces of work I looked at.

MoMa Response

The way I feel about this work is a little confused. The work itself is made really well and it is pretty interesting overall but I'm just now sure what it's about. Maybe if I understood the context of the items like what they would be used for I could understand what they were and how significant they were.
I think his work has a lot of historical context that I'm not familiar with so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. But, to someone that is more aware of the context it is probably very easy for them to understand and see how the work is significant.

Masters of Illusion Response

In the video Masters of Illusion the narrator is talking about how graphics artists are using perspective to make one-dimensional pictures and graphics appear as if they are three-dimensional. The trick is to focus on vanishing points where all the linear planes meet at one point. It makes things look smaller as if you were far away from the point you were looking at.

The Trinity is the first painting to use linear perspective perfectly. The perspective the artist used made it seem like there was a completely new room behind him using a vantage point. It was still a painting but also an illusion.

I found this video fairly interesting because now I can understand how life-like some paintings look. I always knew about vantage points and such but I never really knew how they worked or how to use them. But after watching this video I understand the basis of what they are used for and why they are used. I, myself, probably could never figure out how to use them correctly but knowing how they work and what they are used for could make a photograph or any piece of art better.

Camera Lucida Response

In Camera Lucida, Barthes pretty much just explains photography. I learned some new things about photography that I had never known before. Since, I am a photo major I was really interested to hear what he had to explain. I especially like some of the quotes that I could pull from the reading that pretty much some up my view on photography as well.

“The past is as certain as the present, what we see on paper is as certain as what we touch.” This quote has the same kind of meaning behind it that reiterates what I think photography means to a lot of people: that photography is a way to keep in touch with the past. A photograph is a moment in time, whether it is posed or not it is a way of pulling the past to the present.

Errol Morris Response

In this video, Errol Morris begins to draw conclusions on how photography and the natural world are related to each other. He also begins to touch on the debate between pose photos and honest photos.

I agree with Errol Morris when he says that he believes that all photos are posed. Maybe the photographer isn’t touching the subject placing things in the frame but in every picture there is something that is left out of the picture. Now whether that is on purpose or not does not matter because no matter what the photographer will never get everything in the picture and since the viewer has no clue as to what was to the right of the frame that is a posed/dishonest photo.