Sunday, February 04, 2007 12:35:38 AM

In beginning to see some of the possibilities for understanding some of the concepts within this book, do not expect me to go off on some philosophical tangent and the dualities of X and Y.  However, with that said I do see some of the things the author was trying to express, such as the need to break ‘down the barriers of disinterest or disdain,’ between the formalist and the anti-formalist schools of thought of the 70s.  

During this 50-year division, it was almost up to individual artists to keep the dialogue going by raising awareness as to the constant argument concerning the almost spiritual nature that was expected of the formalist in the gallery space.  The viewer, ‘did not eat, drink, speak, laugh, in the days of Plato, and this became the anti-message for artist’s like Duchamp with his installations: “1,200 Coal Bags” (1938) and “Mile of String (1942), “  of whose concepts spoke of changing the dynamics of the White Cube.  These installations helped to render the context or the museum and exposing the concept of art, of the contained like some of Indiana Jones’s old dusty artifacts.

I can see how the concepts of art/life almost mimic the laws of finite math, and how the thought process inverses and proceeds inward instead of outward at first.  Asking subjective questions would infer ones basic understanding of the work.  I guess my question would be, ‘is there anyone out there who would like to help me understand this stuff?’

Allan Hill

Update: 2/6/07-11:42pm “The Photographic Image”

In attempting to interact with, “The Photographic Message,” I was somewhat more at ease with the reading, even though I am still struggling with the level of art speak.  I can see how meaning of anything (not just an image or icon) can be broken down into its most basic of elements. 

I can see how ‘the source of emission is the staff of a publication, and the group of craft persons mold the image (photograph, image, or icon) and mold it, compose it, title it and then bring it to life by the its reception of the public commenting on it. 

By affording this ‘structural analysis’ of the photographic message, I agree that in relation to drawings that can be easily coded the information imbedded with the photographic image retains its own “structural autonomy.”

In describing just how the photograph can be,’verbalized in the very moment it is perceived’, does the concept change when context changes between differing ideologies, or does the image still retain its ‘structural autonomy?

Allan Hill