nicoleboyle-blog

[nicoleboyle-blog]

It began with an investigation into Robert Frank’s The Americans. Arguably one of the most well known photography books. The Americans— Robert Frank The Book Due to Franks venture away from conventional photographic practice, he initially had a hard to securing an American Publisher. First Published in Paris, France in 1958 by Robert Delpire. It was included as apart of the Encyclopédie Essentielle series. Also included was writings by William Faulkner, Erskine Caldwell, Henry Miller, Simone de Beauvoir and John Stienbeck. In 1959 ‘The Americans’ was published by Grove Press (with the text removed from the original french edition). An Introduction by Jack Kerouac, a Beat Poet, was added along with simpler captions. Frank and Kerouac met outside a party one night in New York in ’57. After seeing some of Franks photos, Kerouac said “SureSure I can write something about these pictures,” giving us the introduction to the US edition of The Americans Monograph Images were selected by Frank. He edited his collection of 27,000+ down to about 1,000 work prints. Than he spread them across the floor of his studio and tacked them to the walls for a final edit. In the end he selected 83 Images. Copy in library, New Edition from 2008 Published by Steidl as a celebration of the Books 50th anniversary Frank himself supervised every aspect of this new edition, including approving every page that rolled off the presses. He even re-cropped many of the photos, usually including more of the image than before. A single image on the Right page, the caption is located on the adjoining left page. Often the captions are just the locations. Context With references from Walker Evans and and Edward Steichen, Frank applied for a Guggenheim fellowship proposing to create an "observation and record of what one naturalized American finds to see in the United States." Frank was Swiss Born bought a used Ford and headed out. Over two years, he road tripped around America, his family with him at times. During his trip, Frank shot 767 rolls of film yielding about 27,000 images. His trip included, New Jersey Chicago South Carolina New Orleans Detroit New York City Montana Los Angeles Pennsylvania Ohio Connecticut Nevada Florida New Mexico Arkansas He was thrown in Jail for three days after being stopped by the police who accused him of being a communist reasons—he was shabbily dressed, he was Jewish, he had letters about his person from people with Russian sounding names — he had foreign whiskey on him — his children had foreign sounded names (Pablo & Andrea) The Response to Book Unarguably revolutionized photography Kerouac said, “Robert Frank…he sucked a sad poem right out of America onto film, taking rank among the tragic poets of the world.” Ed Ruscha "I'd never seen anything like it,Robert Frank came out here and he just showed that you could see the USA until you spit blood.” Joel Meyerowitz "It was the vision that emanated from the book that led not only me, but my whole generation of photographers out into the American landscape in a sense — the lunatic sublime of America,” Jim Casper “I love the range of images Frank captured in the two years he took to make this book. He seems to have experienced the quintessential America of the mid 1950s. When you read the photos in this book, he takes you on a wild cross-country ride.. Article by NPR, Tom Cole 2009— “The Americans showed a different America than the wholesome, non confrontational photo essays offered in some popular magazines. Frank's subjects weren't necessarily living the American dream of the 1950s…”

After reading the introduction to The Americans, several times, I was interested in the author, Jack Kerouac. Following the theme of an American road trip, Kerouac’s On the road is an undeniable fit. “ The book was largely autobiographical and describes Kerouac's road-trip adventures across the United States and Mexico with Neal Cassady in the late 40s and early 50s, as well as his relationships with other Beat writers and friends.” After several film proposals dating from 1957, the book was finally made into a film, On the Road (2012), produced by Francis Ford Coppola and directed by Walter Salles. Kerouac, Jack. On the Road. New York: Penguin Books, 1976.

(come back to add more on Film and book— am in process of reading)

Other movies about Road Trips (In the process of watching) Thelma and Louise Bonnie and Clyde Easy Rider Into the Wild

Other Literary Works about Road Trips Wild by Cheryl Strayed Blue Highways by William Least Heat-Moon, 1982 http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/great-road-trips-in-american-literature-42769879/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/07/24/mapped-five-of-the-best-road-trips-from-literature/?utm_term=.a2a50e93958d

Photographers centered around American Road Trip Robert Frank Ed Rusha Inge Morath Garry Winogrand William Eggleston Lee Friedlander Joel Meyerwitz Jacob Holdt Stephen Shore Bernard Plossu Victor Burgin Joel Sternfeld Shinya Fujiwara Alec Both Todd Hido Ryan McGinley Justine Kurland R

A Short History of the Long Road by David Campany

http://time.com/3998949/road-trip-history/ It’s about the early starts of the now iconic American Road Trip. Initially cars were expensive, gas stations were few and far between but by the time of the 20’s the land started to take shape to what we know today.

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/taking-the-great-american-roadtrip-41615038/

https://www.nomadicmatt.com/travel-blogs/great-american-road-trip-part-deux/

http://theweek.com/captured/442086/ode-great-american-road-trip

[nicoleboyle-blog]

Outline

I have changed topics in the middle of preparing the final assignment. I am now looking into the  quintessential American entertainment/ vacation known as a road trip. Everywhere that you look into American culture, references to road trips exist. Countless movies, literature, and music works have been about life on the road. Many embark out to wander in order to find an identity, or overcome a personal obstacle, or to fulfill what they believe their destiny to be.Recently I have noticed a number of photographers who works stems fro venturing out into the land of the US on a road trip and crafting their works out in the world. I think road trips have become such a central part of American culture, I want to break it down and see if I can begin to unmask its seemingly endless intrigue. I am also very interested in the spirit of a road trip as a coming of age journey or a self discovery process. How does venturing out create a setting which one redefines their inner self which was the same all along? 

[nicoleboyle-blog]

Reading Assignment “Simulacra and Simulations”

The texts begins by questioning the point to simulacrum, which I have taken to mean an image or representation of someone or something. What is the point of a representation of the real. Baudrillard brings up the example of a cartographer, a map illustrator. Their goal is to great an exact representation of the land. If they were to accurately do so, the map would be the size of the land and overlay on top of the land, thus changing the land. The only way for the map to be exact of the land is if the map becomes apart of the land which than it ceases to be a map. The great quest by cartographers is impossible a pointless. There is no way for there to be an exact representation of the land. Models are made in the image of the real, but when it becomes a model without any reality or origin, it is hyperreal. Baudrillard continues, in a world constructed of simulation, the real comes from a basis of nothing which inadvertently can be reproduced indefinitely negating the realness of the constructed world. In the  world constructed by simulation, there is no longer a real or true, it becomes a collective system of signs which are pliable in meaning. It is no longer about the sign as a representation of the real, since there is no real, the sign replaces the once real and furthers a reality lacking any realness but instead becomes a perfect operational dupe to the real. From there on the real will never be produced again. The dissimulate is to pretend not to have what you in fact have. To simulate is to pretend to have what one doesn’t. Baudrillard uses the example of an illness and symptoms. If one simulates, pretend to have what one doesn't have, than they will then in fact produces symptoms of an illness they do not have. However the issue arrises that since they did not have the illness, the simulation was to acquire symptoms, do they now have the illness since the symptoms exist? Does medicine concern its self with the origin of an illness or symptoms or should it treat what is directly displayed? I take Baudrillard’s point to be that, cause aside, what is presented is to be real if there could be such a thing as real or true. But there is no way to prove the real. At the same time they should not be ignored since they can not be proven false either. When regarding religion, should there be representation of the divine? Can the divine even be represented. In the begging the religious argue that no, the divine can never be represented. But upon further investigation the divine is only ever presented through representation, icons specifically. Then the things to which the icons are pointing to dissolve and they reference themselves, turning icons into idols. Baudrillard breaks own the purpose of an image. First it serves as reflection of reality. Second, it is removed from reality, masking it. Third the hides the truth which there is no reality. for if it was a reality, an image which reflects it would not be possible therefor it isn't a true reality and the image thus proves it. Lastly, the image is of nothing but itself and is its own simulacrum. Baudrillard than uses Disneyland to outline the role of the hyperreal. Disney contains it’s appeal by selling the illusion that it is an illusion. Adults and children alike flock to Disney so that they can escape “the real world” and enter into a world of Disney. Once the visitor walks into the park, everything there references itself and its identity as Disney and refrains from referencing the outside world. However, the land of Disney can only exist because of its existence in the real world. Secondly, Disneyland is still a physical place, it’s buildings use the same materials that an office or home would use. It isn't some dream state that physically ceases to exist. But what Disney sells is an fake escape to a world where the real world ceases to exist however, that is only an illusion. Now, an adult understands that Disneyland is located in Anaheim and time continues on and the date is the same as when they walked into the park. Now one is believing that they are transported into another reality, but what the pay for is the illusion that they are in another reality. It is no different when they go see a movie. The film contains real people, real objects, they the reality which the events take place isn’t, but its reference to reality and simulated reality is what interests the viewer. Its the illusion of the illusion. In a way, as Baudrillard points out, Disney is merely like a live movie. An illusion that the patron buys into that its all an illusion. This is what the hyper real is made of. For Baudrillard, there is no real, there are no originals. only copies, which are simulacra.

[nicoleboyle-blog]

Fight Club & Post Modernism

Fight Club is a very complex movie, stating the obvious. However, it very simply lays out the different viewpoints that postmodernism carries. The most significant postmodernist  point in the film is the emphasis on fragmentation. The entire plot line centers around a relationship between two people, who are ultimately the same person. Essentially the viewer is analyzing the fragmentation of one man’s identity. The narrator of the story, played by Ed Norton, is an depressed insomniac who subconsciously creates an alternative personal whom he believed was another person. The alternate persona, known as Tyler Durden takes on the personality traits the narrator wishes he had. In short, Tyler is everything the narrator isn’t. In the later parts of the movie, once the narrator realized he is Tyler, Tyler than states why he is the way he is. 1:34:01 “Cause we are the same person.” “That’s right…. You were looking for a way to change your life. You could not do this on your own. All the ways you wish you could be. That’s me. Look like you wanna look. Fuck like you wanna Fuck. I am smart, capable, and most importantly I’m free in all the ways you are not.” Tyler became a personal in which the narrator lived his life the way he wished he could and does them with out consequences. Since in his mind he is not the one doing the bad things, then he isn't breaking the rules. I found it very interesting how Tyler kept things from the narrators knowledge. It was important to Tyler that the narrator didn't found out they were the same person, for example his instructions to not talk to Marla about Tyler. That was important because she saw both sides of the same man and wouldn’t refrain from talking about it. Which she ended up doing when the narrator called to verify his suspicions that he was Tyler. Not only was the narrator’s identity fragmented, his knowledge was as well between his two identities. Continuing on the theme of fragmentation, the storyline of the movie contained no real determinable timeline. The very first scene explains every detail that the narrator spends roughly two-thirds of the movie trying to figure out. Days are blurred, events take place before and after each other and the knowledge/ understanding is uncovered after it was needed. The constant fragmentation in a timeline is a very common staple among postmodernist works. Returning back to the understanding that the narrator and Tyler are the same person, the viewer watched the same person live out two different lives simultaneously. At first glance it seems uncommon for one person two have to identities in the same life. Two identities acting out in the same time and same surroundings, but today it is very common for individuals to have serval personas existing simultaneously. The narrator created Tyler who existed in the context of the fight club. Today, people create personas that exist in the context of the internet. Lives which we live out simultaneously as we live in the outside world. Think of the countless conversations existing that you are apart of. There is the chain of text messages living in your phone which either you have to respond to or are waiting on a response from. There is the endless flood of emails, there is the dialogue on a Instagram post which you commented on. there are the conversations that will be continued when you next see your best friend. You can even have three different conversations with the same person at the same time; one over text message, one over email, and one over snapchat. There is a specific persona which is projected on a person’s social media page. An edited representation of what their life looks like. What good parts they choose to publicize. A fragmented timeline of what their life is. The media age has created an avenue for endless fragmentation of our identity. It is possible that we have even more identities than the narrator did in the film. The question becomes which identity is true? or are they all true? Broken down, the term fragmentation means “the process or state of breaking or being broken into small or separate parts”. If we took a dish and smashed it on the floor, the little pieces it is broken into do not become any less of a plate than they were when they are all apart of the same piece of ceramics. The pieces do not cease to be parts of a dish. Therefore, one might think that all of the fragmented identities that exist in our world are each as valid as the generic idea of our identity. Is the narrators character any more or less of them self than Tyler is? Thinking in terms of postmodernism, I believe that both characters are equally true and can exist simultaneously via the understanding of fragmentation. While the film Fight Club contains several motifs of postmodernism, I found the idea of fragmentation to be the most prominent.

[nicoleboyle-blog]

Blog Assignment #2 Postmodernist Analysis

That 70’s Show Season 2. Episode 6. Vanstock

The episode contains a plot following Kelso’s close call with his girlfriend, Jackie finding out about his side girlfriend, Laurie while on a trip a festival known as Vanstock. The secondary plot follows main character Red Forman as his becomes heavily invested in daytime soap operas since he is no longer employed. Red spends his day watching soap opera’s with neighbor since he is out of a job and his wife Kitty instructs him to keep her friend/neighbor, Midge, company since she is going through a rough time with her husband and Kitty has to go to work. Red and midge send the day watching soap operas, which he becomes very invested in. He is shown commenting ��holy cow! I didn't see that one coming!”, “But Rachel is about to dump Brad for Jeff.”, “Oh come on Midge, she can’t love a guy in a coma? What the hell kind of love is that?” This scene truly illustrates his attentiveness to the soap opera, his personal investment into the characters, etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzw6iGzY9Qg  

 Later on Red is to accompany his wife to her job’s annual party. While at the party he finds himself chatting with a lady about the soap opera he was watching earlier. He’s seen criticizing her for not watching the show with enough attention to discuss it at the level which he is. “You know, I don’t understand why you watch if you’re not gonna pay attention.” The episode then cuts to a narrator (typically not used in the show) “And now, another episode of Point Place”.

 The show now mimics itself as if it were a soap opera, like the one Red has been watching. The camera work has shifted from the traditional flat scene to a dramatic selective focus double portrait. In the mini soap opera, Red asks Kitty what he as become since he no longer has a job.  Her response is that he isn't the man she married, and for dramatic effect, she proclaims “And Im not Kitty”. Moments later she recants and says “I am Kitty, but I am leaving you for Dr. Cloak. or should I say Eric’s real father”  As she says this she breaks the fourth wall and stares into the camera.

Traditionally, in a soap opera, this would seem normal and fit the motifs of a soap opera. However, That 70’s show is comedy which does not share the same nuances a soap opera does. This skit references its self by talking about an alternate life playing out in a soap compaired to it’s traditional reality. In the main plot of the TV series, Red is Eric’s real father and Kitty is not leaving him, they are in fact very much in love. By referencing their real characters, and breaking the fourth wall and engaging with the camera, they show the audience they are aware of their presence in a TV show. In this skit the actors are acting to the audience, which includes the character of Red Forman and the viewers at home.

As mentioned before, the presence of a narrator also signifies to the awareness that the characters are in a TV show. They begin acting in response to the Narrators dialogue. In addition, there is a moment where a piece of TV filming equipment drops into the scene, which Kitty interacts with. This further dismantles the illusion of reality and highlights the awareness the characters have.

In the final scene of the episode, a narrator returns to voice over the cliffhanger questions like in a soap opera. “Will Red get a job? Will Jackie ever find out about Kelso and Laurie? Will we ever find out where Fez is from? Will Hyde ever find his topless Cinderella? and what ever happened to Midge’s daughter Tina? Will Eric and Donna consummate their illicit teenage love? and what about Chuck and Bob? Oh wait, they aren't on this show. Confused? You wont be after the next episode of That 70’s Show.” Traditionally, That 70’s show doesn’t have a narrator as mentioned before. Now within the context of the TV show, we have reference to itself via narrator.

[nicoleboyle-blog]

Remix Assignment #1

This song/ music video in a way is a recount of my life up to now. How did I come across this video? I attended Trinity University directly after graduating high school. During my time there, I was hesitant to define my self as an artist and I kept taking non art classes in hopes of finding something I loved to do more than photography. I wasn't successful in that pursuit however, I found my self very interested in philosophy and kept taking different courses in the department. I ended up taking a class with my advisor, whom I was assigned because I selected Philosophy as a potential major on my application which I blindly selected. None the less the course was the Philosophy of Music. About half way through the semester I was fed up not knowing the musical works mentioned in the texts, I looked up the pieces were referring and this was the first one I looked up. Why I was too stubborn to look them up before this point I don’t know. This video immediately became played on repeat the remainder of my time at Trinity. My time at Trinity is a large part of why I am at Art Center today, and a large step in figuring out who I am and my identity. My time at Trinity proved that I knew what I didn't want, which took my one step closer to who I am. The video/ remix is by DJ Lobsterdust and it is a mash up of Same old Song by Four Tops and Uniform by Bloc Party. We hear the instrumentals from the Bloc Party song but the vocals of the Four Tops lead vocalist Levi Stubbs. The vocals are immediately recognized however when the rest of the quartet is left out, a psychological distance is created and the song sounds more somber despite the lyrics remaining the same. When I was around 6 years old, I was a part of a dance company in which I performed a tap dancing routine to the Four Tops song "I Can't Help Myself (Sugar Pie, Honey Bunch)" Through my vague memories, the aid of family photos and home movies, I'm taken back to a piece of my childhood. I think back to the encouraging words of my mother before the many many dance recitals I took part in. I think back to the house I grew up in and the friends I had. Without question, every piece of my childhood set me on a path that landed me here today. In many ways this video lays out two very significant parts of my past that shaped my identity today.

The second layer to the song is the indie rock instrumental track. This speaks more to my personality and who I am today sitting in front of you. I enjoy this type of music and much of my iTunes library is composed of different indie rock, alternative, and blues rock music. I believe that our music tastes are as important to our identity as our style is. It’s fitting that the music blends seamlessly with my music taste. It’s as if its adding another layer of my self into the piece. Now the media piece is something I can identify with because it belongs to the music group which I do.

The visual track accompanying the remix is a black and white video switching between footage of the Four Tops and Block Party performing.  Much of my identity today is founded in my interest and passion for photography which was started with black and white photography. In addition to that, the footage of the band performing reminds me of an old relationship. A relationship that had a very large impact on me. I’d prefer to keep this part vague yet still recognize it’s significance.

To me, this photo is represents my interpretation of my personality. More along the lines of a psychological portrait. The image is soft and warm. Two characteristics I strive to present. I think the world can be a cruel place, there is no reason for me to add to the evil that is out there. It’s important to me to be kind and warm to everyone I come across. I aim to make the words I speak soft, and to keep my thoughts about others good. No matter what is going on in my life, there is always someone whose day is going better than mine and someone’s whose is going a lot worse, and when a person comes across my path, I might never know what kind of day they are having. Therefore I want to offer them a smile. They might need it and it always brightens my day more when I smile. Continuing on the idea of soft, I believe my demeanor to be soft. I am not very confrontational and the image is welcoming, its inviting, it’s as if its allowing it’s viewer to enter the space at their own pace. I think that because I’m non-confrontational, I’ve gotten the impression others warm up to me at their own pace rather than my personality forcing them to accept me. I like how the image is easy to read, yet it isn’t too simple. Not the whole image is illuminated or filled with detail. It takes time for me to open up to someone, for them to understand me and get to know me. More often than not, the first impression someone has of me is wrong, similar to how a viewer might not immediately understand the image or see that it’s the shadow of a flower cast on to the wall from the sunlight passing through a window. The image also speaks to my aesthetic as a photographer. I tend to gravitate towards warm light and soft tones.

[nicoleboyle-blog]

You Say You Want a Devolution? Kurt Andersen

In Kurt Andersen’s You Say You Want a Devolution?, he attempts to construct a correlation between the evolution of fashions (or lack of evolution) to the rapidly changing landscape constructed of technological advances.  While I agree that Andersen  makes good points in his article, I  believe the  biggest flaw is that his article is too broad. He speaks about culture and style as a  single entity. I don't believe that American style and culture can be  lumped into one general  category. What might be relevant in fashion for  a young adult  in Los Angeles, is not necessarily true  stylish for young adults in New York or the  Kansas City. At first glance, it is easy  for a reader who fits  the demographic he describes to immediately agree with  his positions and  accept them  as true. But with a more critical eye, it is important to recognized the narrow swath of culture Andersen chooses to highlight. Andersen  has taken a very specific claim about small cross section of American culture and style, and  applied it broadly across different cultural,  economic , and social groups without recognizing  his error.

With reference to my bubble and its inhabitants, I agree with Andersen’s critique of fashion, but I know that outside my bubble, it is not always true.  Fashion today mimics the fashion of the 1980’s, 90’s and 00’s, where as the twenty year blocks before, style looked no more alike than a bicycle does a truck. I personally fall into the category of American youths looking backward searching for inspiration. I am one who shops in vintage stores and often times I’ll pull out an article of clothing and my mother will chime in saying “I had something identical to that twenty years ago, I would have kept it if I knew fashion was going to recycle this quickly!” I appreciated Andersen’s recognition of fashion repeating itself, I agree that it does to an extent. I think certain fashion elements continue to fade in and out and back into style. Take tightly fitted jeans for example. In the 50’s, greaser men wore a fitted jean, then as trends changed the 70’s was filled with bell bottom cut jeans. Now in the 2010’s, slim fit jeans are back in style.

I find it interesting how style today has not only incorporated previously popular styles, it has mimicked it identically. I, along with may others, shop for specifically vintage pieces which were manufactured in the 80’s and 90’s, not something that was made today with similar elements of the earlier pieces. I cannot agree with Andersen on his comment about the unconscious rebellion against rapid newness. Yes, no one can argue that the last twenty years have been filled with technological and cultural advance. More so than any twenty year period prior. However, from my perspective, the rapid growth of technology doesn't seem rapid. I have grown up with the new iPhone debuting every year or two, my early teenage years were documented on social media. So personally, I cant imagine why there would be pushback against something I had never known to be different. I cannot speak for others of a different age, or those in different environments, I can only speak for myself as a 20 year old artist living in LA. Andersen has failed to identify the group and groups of people he is referencing. Basing it off of the the fashion trends Andersen mentioned, it seems he is referring to a younger demographic of people, possible people which he encountered two years earlier during his residency at Art Center College of Design. And if that is the demographic which serves as the basis for his claim, his claims about the unconscious denial of rapid newness might be better suited to a different demographic. Which should have been specified in the article.