Same works if you remove a spoon and porridge. This is uttlery meaningless even if it were real life. Projecting behavioural triggers on technology is flawed most of the time.
Photographs: Removed
71–80 of 84 posts
Re: Photographs: Removed
#72I get, and appreciate, where I feel the artist is going with this: a reflection on the loneliness epidemic and our relationship to technology. BUT I think one layer of meta out is just as creepy and weirdly out of context once you start erasing things. Namely the picture of the couple in bed is another level of creepy if there is some guy/girl hovering over them staring at them with a digitally-erased camera.
You're uh... aware that the photographer didn't sneak into their room without them knowing, right?
Re: Photographs: Removed
#73I get, and appreciate, where I feel the artist is going with this: a reflection on the loneliness epidemic and our relationship to technology. BUT I think one layer of meta out is just as creepy and weirdly out of context once you start erasing things. Namely the picture of the couple in bed is another level of creepy if there is some guy/girl hovering over them staring at them with a digitally-erased camera.
You're uh... aware that the photographer didn't sneak into their room without them knowing, right?
I guess what I'm trying to say is which is more depressing or sad: a couple ignoring each other, or a guy watching a couple ignore each other, or even, if I were to turn the lens on myself, a guy watching another guy watching a couple ignore each other.
Re: Photographs: Removed
#74reddit.com/r/im14andthisisdeep
Re: Photographs: Removed
#75Aw jeez, this is really depressing
I don't know, I just can't see this as a meaningful representation.
Maybe I'm biased because I don't check my phone all the time - but you could get a snapshot of me in most of these situations. It would just not be an accurate depiction of how I live my life. It's like "hey I have a picture of you washing your hands, how many minutes per day do you spend in front of a sink?".
Sure, everyone who goes to concerts knows those people who film every minute. But if you time it right you'll also see me taking a quick picture, that's a few seconds once or twice on a 3h concert.
Re: Photographs: Removed
#76By the title you’d assume these are candid shots of people in real life situations with the phones digitally removed. The actual method the photographer used was to stage situations, and acquire models to act out scenarios for maximum effect. I don’t know how the production of said images will effect the viewer - but I think it’s important to point out - as it does effect the content. This is staged art. This isn’t d…
Alright, we've updated the title from “Photographer Removes Phones from Photos”.
Re: Photographs: Removed
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the viewer brought about as a result of the production of said images?
No, but the content is brought about as a result of the production of said images.
So "I don’t know how the production of said images will effect the viewer" should be "I don’t know how the production of said images will affect the viewer".
Re: Photographs: Removed
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's affect, not effect, in this case: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/usage/affect-or-effect (I'm sorry. My English is far from perfect either, I just really stumbled over this one for some reason.)
While that situation is often the case, effect is used correctly as a verb in this context. From your link: > When used as a verb effect means ‘to bring something about as a result’. It’s most often used in a formal context as oppose to everyday English: > Growth in the economy can only be effected by stringent economic controls. > The new policies did little to effect change. > The prime minister effected many polic…
I'd argue that both uses are incorrect here, and that's probably why it caught me so off guard. If you look at "it does effect the content", what does "it" refer to? The production? In that case, it'd technically be true that the production brings about the content, but that's almost certainly not the intended meaning here because it's a tautology. The much more likely intended meaning is that the specific manner of production affects (as in, makes a difference to) the content.
Re: Photographs: Removed
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh yes let's all remember 2005 when no one ever looked in the mirror and everyone in big city public transport held hands and sung folk songs on their morning commute.
For the record I have sung songs with a subway car full of people on Chicago's Red Line. Was not during commuting hours tho. Alcohol was probably a bigger factor than the presence of cell phones.
The N train was the "3am Disney Sing-a-Long" after the bar on my friend's ride home to Queens.
Re: Photographs: Removed
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're uh... aware that the photographer didn't sneak into their room without them knowing, right?
I guess what I'm trying to say is which is more depressing or sad: a couple ignoring each other, or a guy watching a couple ignore each other, or even, if I were to turn the lens on myself, a guy watching another guy watching a couple ignore each other.
Being in a relationship doesn’t mean you have to pay attention to each other constantly. Some people read books/magazines/papers before sleeping, and some others do stuff on their phones.