elasticlimit

America™ is the brand name that activist/founder of AdBusters Kalle Lasn uses to define the current state of American culture. What once was a nation consisting of people who set out to live the “American Dream”, is now a corporate-run business in every aspect. The American Dream has been changed into something that is now fed to American citizens through the mainstream media, a media which is run in every way by big business. That manufactured dream that is fed to us goes like this: look like one of those models on the billboards (or else no one will fall in love with you), buy a BMW, some Nike sneakers, and then buy more stuff so you can be “cool” and be just like everyone else.

Lasn explains how corporations control everything around us; what we see when we pick up a newspaper, who the president of the United States is, and most importantly, what the average American sees when he sits down to watch four hours of television every day.

While, at first, I found some of Lasn’s ideas a bit radical and far-fetched, I found them all very interesting, and realized the more I read how much truth there was to his ideas. What I found perhaps the most profound were his stories of his experiences trying to buy airtime on national television stations in order to air his own commercials. The commercial he attempted to air was an ad for an unofficial holiday he deemed “Buy Nothing Day”. This holiday was created as an attempt to get Americans to think about the level of consumerism in our nation and perhaps to get them to examine the real reasons why they buy so many unnecessary things. The best part about this holiday, was that it was to take place on the last Friday of November…the day after Thanksgiving when every year people line up in front of every major department store in the country in order to get in and buy everything they can get their hands on.

Lasn went to every major television station asking them if he could buy airtime, thinking that every American would have the right to use the television to exercise his/her right to free speech. Some of the responses from the PR people who dealt with Lasn’s request went as follows:

“There’s no law that says we have to air anything-we’ll decide what we want to air or not.” – ABC New York station manager Art Moore

“We don’t want to take any advertising that’s inimical to our legitimate business interests.” – NBC network commercial clearance manager Richard Gitter

And my personal favorite (and the one that justifies pretty much all of Lasn’s ideas):

“This commercial [“Buy Nothing Day”]…is in opposition to the current economic policy in the United States.” – CBS network’s Robert L. Lowary

After reading that it became quite clear how much of the media is controlled by big businesses in the United States; all of it. There is nothing above these corporations, because they have the money therefore they run the show that is now America™. They are making us who they want us to be, which is the most consumerist culture in the world.

As Lasn puts it, every American is on his/her knees in front of these corporations, and we all need to stand up. And that’s exactly what culture jamming is about. Standing up and not accepting what rich businesses are pushing onto us. Culture jamming is about a new kind of revolution, one that is waged on the media, and by reading just the first opening pages of his book it becomes apparent that Kalle Lasn believes that the culture jammers truly can change the world.

Posted By: Bobby Bernethy

Of all the readings, the Benson readings got under my skin and agitated me the most. I have to ask; IS photography the capture process, the printing process, the distribution process, or is the whole bundle under the category “Photography”? Benson discusses the 4 Stages of Photography, yet each stage has a capture method associated with a print method, as so to say that photography is nothing without printing. Sure, he briefly mentions the computer screen, but its all of 5 words, not the lengthy chapters dedicated to even the most esoteric of print methods.

The answer to the question I initially pose seems obvious to me. I feel that photography is the art of the capture. I feel that the rendering process is something else. Intimately related to photography, of course, but an entirely separate entity. Perhaps I am to literal in my derivation, but there are Wedding Photographers, and Sports Photographers, and News Photographers. Yet, they may all go to the same lab to have their results applied to paper by a technician (read: walmart) who may not understand the difference between an F-stop and an F-mount. While at the same time, their photos may never see paper at all. Does that mean they are NOT participating members of the Photography community? I sincerely believe that Benson should revise his thinking. Photography is no longer directly associated with physical hands on final results. Nay I say, results come in forms that have not only surpassed paper prints, but have transcended them.

To illustrate this, I would like to point out my chosen “photo”. Below you will see a link to my QTVR (QuickTime Virtual Reality) movies of the UH Manoa campus at night. It is a fully interactive 360° environment, complete with hotspots (may take a minute to download). To move the view, use your arrow keys, or click and drag left/ right/ up/ down to pan in the respective direction. Zooming can be accomplished with the CTRL and Shift keys. To “show hotspots” click the little arrow (house like icon with a question mark in it) in the control bar. Also note, when you do move the mouse over a hot spot, the cursor will change to an arrow, and the name of that hotspot will be displayed in the control bar. I’ve also included a frame to the left so that you don’t have to search for hotspots to jump to the different locations on campus (I suggest visiting Student Services).

Click here to view the movies

Perhaps, photography is akin to a family. The photographer is much like a “father” where in the whole family assumes its name. We then have the printing/viewing methods (be it screen, or paper) which is analogous to the “mother” whom is able to produce the offspring “photo”.

Posted by David Baker.

AUTHENTICITY: A RESPONSE TO DAVE HICKEY’S “AIR GUITAR”

I recently read a reading pulled from Dave Hickey’s Air Guitar, which touched on many mind tingling topics, but mainly focused on the subject of “authenticity.” Although written in 1997, this reading could not be more relevant to our current society. In Air Guitar Dave Hickey uses Liberace as an example of “authenticity,” due to the fact that he never hid who he was; that cliché saying “never judge a book by its cover,” flies right out the window in Liberace’s case, because everything that was shown on the surface of Liberace was truly him.

While reading this article I was very impressed by how Dave Hickey used Liberace’s life as a platform to expand and cut into other areas of question. For example, throughout this reading he re-tells how Liberace’s sexuality and personal life were constantly questioned and attacked by the media and the public. Why are those questions important and such a big deal? I would like to think that by his behavior and actions he was, on a subconscious level, provoking everyone to question, ironically, the very questions being asked and “ask why ask why.” Why are we so preoccupied in categorizing everything? Why do we have to slap a label on everything? Could it be tied with our consumer driven society?

At that time Liberace was a product being sold in the United States and abroad, reporters would question why we as a society would fall (purchase show tickets, watch his television shows, buy his memorabilia, etc) for such a “preposterous” clown. Therefore, by using the word “preposterous” or in other words “crazy” or “not real” they are questioning the “authenticity” of Liberace, which in turn indicates people were buying or consuming a fake. But what was “preposterous” or “fake” about him? Besides the fact that he constantly denied what was obvious in regards to his sexual orientation, nothing. He was who he was, in other words “it is what it is” and nothing more. So I would say that the people who attacked him were pushing their standard and their preconceived notion of “authenticity” against Liberace, when in fact what he needed to say to prove he authenticity was not relevant at all.

From my perspective, it seems Liberace exploited their arrogance and their bias standard of what it is to be “authentic” and cashed in on it daily. The media pressured him for the truth constantly when the truth was written all over his pink, rhinestone-covered suite. It’s either you prefer “the honest fakery of the neon or the fake honesty of the sunset,” is there a real difference, and does it really matter? And I quote Dave Hickey for the hundredth time “it’s more a matter of one’s taste is duplicity.” But controversy is hot, and hot is sexy, and sex sells; just look at today’s pop celebrities who are cashing in on the public’s debate of who’s “real” and who’s “fake.” Their selling point is not their talent, it’s their public or private behavior and the debate over if they’re a “real” or just a “fake” has filled their bank accounts to the tee. In reality, they have never claimed to be the best actor, singer, or talented individual, which on a small level raises a lot of questions about our current society.

For example, Paris Hilton or Eminem, someone who has appropriated the “rhetoric of the closet” and has used it in his music and public battles to question today’s standard of what or how a “real” role model should portray his or herself. Why is the younger generation looking to him for guidance instead of their parents? Both of these figures I believe have shown a hint of Liberace in them and like Liberace has “cried all the way to the bank.” But I’ll talk about Paris Hilton, reason being, we all know and have seen the disastrous effects of a broken home and growing up in a lower middle class neighbor hood (Eminem) and I believe the other end of the spectrum would be Paris Hilton, something a little more interesting.

For the past three or four years she has been a constant spotlight in the mainstream media. Why? She is not talented, nor as stunningly beautiful, as people would make her to be, so how has she still managed to appear in numerous movies, score a record deal, start a successful clothing line, and the list goes on and on. And yes, I know she’s filthy rich and she has the capital to dabble in all industries, but it’s a proven fact that the masses consume her products with great enthusiasm.

My point being, although she has added more filth to the already tainted entertainment, or pop industry, at the same time she has caused many people to question why society would encourage or strive to be like such an individual whose image is most notable for partying, sex scandals, and “air headedness”. Young teenage girls to college women flock to the stores to purchase a so called “book” with a 8-10 page spread of her modeling various outfits; they will also buy a $200 pair of sandals just because she’s wearing it. Everyone is caught up in the debate of “who is she? She’s a fake, not worthy of ‘real’ celebrity status.” However, in the end she’s just being who she is, an innocent “pop naïf,” with a taste for provocative clothes, and a Swarvoski Gem covered phone with no clue, I’m pretty sure, of how her life has had such a massive impact on today’s society and has left everyone with many questions to dwell upon in regards to what a “REAL” role model should be status-quo.

Posted by: Matthew Honda

I created a body of photographic images that took a visual stance against the proposed expansion of the Turtle Bay Resort and the lands that are owned by Oaktree Capital Managment. This unique stretch of beach exsists on the North Shore of O’ahu. The plans to expand came to light over three decades ago, but didn’t have the financial backers and the correct avenue to proceed. Being of Hawai’ian ethnicity and growning up in Hawai’i, i’ve seen first hand how it’s lush beauty has been the cause of the catastrophic population increase and the draining of our resources and disposal of our native lands. Obviously it’s not just Hawai’i that has this dillema, but it is shared with the world in our ever increasing drive to do things “bigger and better” and to let “nothing stand in the way.”

I hiked around the Kahuku/Kawela Bay area and created images that offered the viewer a look into the rawness of the North Shore and also intended to evoke a certain emotional level over the natural beauty that the ‘aina embodies. I shot my landscapes in a way to not only showcase the lands, but force the viewer to realize what would be lost if the expansion were to go through, and at the same time reflect on areas that are already lost forever to overcrowding and the inevitable industry that we’ve created.

The proposed plans would transform the North Shore into the second Waikiki of O’ahu. Just based on the lack of infrastructure alone, the expansions plans should be reconsidered in great detail. When will the greed stop? Can’t people realize what we have here in paradise? Wake up people… What’s next? Homes on the Mokulua Islands in Lanikai? We need to cherish what we have and break out of the mindset of this “money grubbing” and selfish way of looking at the our island home. “Malama kekahi i kekahi ame i ka ‘aina”….

posted by Sam Richey

Have you ever opened a book or picked up a flyer only to set it down right away? The lack of a grid often leads to more work for the reader as we don’t easily see the main ideas and cant quickly understand the message we are supposed to get. “THE GRID” can seem like a daunting and serious element when it comes to graphic design, as well as digital imaging, photography, painting, and for that matter every medium of art.

Deciding which style of grid to use, and how to lay it out in the most successful manner both conceptually and contextually is often the most important and thus difficult decision, as it either enhances your work in its readability, or ruins great ideas. But without it we are left in a congested world of confusion. And once studied and the purpose understood, we realize just how natural the grid is in our life, and thus why it is so important to maintain it in our work.

When I first realized that the grid is not manmade and that it is, in fact, everywhere in nature, I was stoked. I mean, how beautiful and amazing is the Nautilus shell? It is seen as absolute perfection in accordance to the Fibonacci spiral and Golden Proportion, where we have come to understand what is perceived as the point of greatest interest, created naturally, and mathematically reproduced to an absolute. Throughout nature we see the grid played out over and over again, in spider webs, the pattern moss creates when growing, bee hives and so on. Flying high above in a plane, looking at the world below, you realize everything is formatted to a grid, plots of land, rows of corn, vineyards, rivers running through the land, and roads, the layout of cities and town, neighborhood blocks, buildings with all their windows and paneling; life functions off the grid. The grid is where we find functionality and flow… it allows everything to have its place in time.

During the English Arts and Crafts Movement “Morris and Company vigorously advocated the notion that fitness of purpose inspired form… a way of working that responded to content.” Like the roads that serve to get us from point a to point b in the most direct method, the purpose of a design or work of art creates a natural form, an underlying grid, if we allow ourselves to see it and then use it. We respond to the content and meaning of the work, which we know best, by presenting it in the most effective way for the viewers to understand it. And in doing so we not only create but realize the significance of space, emptiness and utilize this when placing images, points of focus and text; the placement of space has great importance both visually as well as contextually. But we have to keep in mind what the purpose our art is to serve… is it meant to break the tight constraints that can be created from the grid?

I am a firm believer in the title of this book. I understand you must first understand the purpose of the grid, create the most appropriate grid for the piece and then break it to some extent, making it personable, with a human touch. We like the element of surprise, it keeps us interested when done in organized way; some letters running out of the column or overlapping, images that run of the page maybe even onto another, and so on. I like when there are a few elements that explode the grid… its more fun I suppose; too tight of a constraint can never be good- who likes overwhelming structure? I mean, its good to have rules imposed, but then take it to the limits!

Anyway, doing a lot of work in graphic design, and being a person who loves organizing and feeling a sense of control, I appreciate grids immensely, however, I don’t like things too clean, or too structured. I need a human touch… and as you know we humans are not perfect!

Posted by: Mary Reeds

The article “Menus, Filters, Plug-ins” state that the visual media, especially since the rise of computers and image editing software, has come down to the “user” a.k.a. the “artist” selecting from a library of pre-made objects, such as clip art, filters, etc, and combining them into a piece, rather than the artist making everything from scratch. The article further states that this “Logic of Selection” allows anyone to be a creator.

My initial reaction to this article was “Wow, this is like THE anti-digital imaging (or any other digital media for that matter).” It does, however, make some good points about working in digital media. Software such as Photoshop does come with a wide variety of filters, tools, and graphics, making it easy for its users to make their own images and/or graphics. Even other media, such as video, 3-D modeling, and music, have their own set of software that come with their own set of pre-made files that make the act of creation easy for anyone who can read a manual. While it is true that most of today’s software comes with an enormous library of presets that almost anyone can create “something” just by using what is provided, I do believe that the article focuses too much on the software and not enough on its users to support its point.

One of the article’s main points appears to be the idea that the creative process has been replaced by pull-down menus, commands, and plug-ins. I would argue that the menus, commands, and plug-ins are nothing more than tools in a digital artist’s arsenal. Although the commands and such are written so that they do a specific action, the decision of whether to use the command, as well as where, how, and why rest with the user/artist. In the context of digital imaging, when the artist makes the decision to use, or not to use, a certain filter, command, or plug-in, is when the artist is involved in creative thought. The article also states that the user/artist is a technician; an accessory to the machine. Again, I beg to differ with the author of the article. Machines are incapable of thought and can only do what the user/artist commands it to do. In essence, the user/artist is the only variable that allows for the creation of a piece.

Another point made by the article is the idea that works are made from “pre-made parts” that come with the software or found on the web, rather than from scratch. I would argue that first of all, an artist serious about their work would create materials to use in their work on their own, whether it be a photograph (digital or analog), drawing (scanned or vector), and anything else capable of being “digitized.” As far as the internet is involved, some artists may choose to use graphics, textures, photos, fonts and such found on web based resources, but that’s also part of the artist’s creative process.

Digital media, being as young as it is, is bound to be questioned by some skeptics as its validity as an art form. Perhaps its acceptance too, will grow with time.

Posted By: Shintaro Okanaka

The Blue Brain Project: Check out this amazing research on the brain
The cerebral cortex, the convoluted “grey matter” that makes up 80% of the human brain, is responsible for our ability to remember, think, reflect, empathize, communicate, adapt to new situations and plan for the future. The cortex first appeared in mammals, and it has a fundamentally simple repetitive structure that is the same across all mammalian species.

An image of 10,000 neurons and 30 million connections that making up a single neocortical column.

The brain is populated with billions of neurons, each connected to thousands of its neighbors by dendrites and axons, a kind of biological “wiring”. The brain processes information by sending electrical signals from neuron to neuron along these wires. In the cortex, neurons are organized into basic functional units, cylindrical volumes 0.5 mm wide by 2 mm high, each containing about 10,000 neurons that are connected in an intricate but consistent way. These units operate much like microcircuits in a computer. This microcircuit, known as the neocortical column (NCC), is repeated millions of times across the cortex. The difference between the brain of a mouse and the brain of a human is basically just volume - humans have many more neocortical columns and thus neurons than mice.

This structure lends itself to a systematic modeling approach. And indeed, the first step of the Blue Brain project is to re-create this fundamental microcircuit, down to the level of biologically accurate individual neurons. The microcircuit can then be used in simulations.

The Gallery is particularly interesting….

Written by: Cari Saiki-Dela Cruz

The grid, as defined by the Oxford American College Dictionary, is “a framework of spaced bars that are parallel to or crossing each other; a grating” or “a network of lines that gross each other to form a series of squares or rectangles.” Though the grid is obviously important to graphic design and photography, it is interesting to study because it pervades every aspect of life as seen in the images above. Its structure can be found in nature, cities, and art.

Contrary to the dictionary definition, however, grids are not always composed of perpendicular or parallel lines, especially in nature. Sometimes they consist of or result in curved or angled lines. The first two images, of the shell and diagram, is an example of this. In nature, the spiral of the shell is determined by the Fibonacci sequence, which, here, has been shown as a grid. Other natural grids include spider webs and beehives. Though grid use in art and design can be traced back to the Roman and Greek Empires, nature has used it as a foundation for creation for much longer.

The third image, of the London railway system, is a prime example of the grid used today, in urban cultures. When looking at major cities, you realize that they would not succeed if it were not for the grid. It is used as the primary means of organizing maps, zoning cities, and building architectural structures. If poorly designed, however, it can complicate many lives by creating traffic delays, misleading people to wrong places, or even causing bodily harm if a physical structure were to collapse. People also use the grid to map time, through systems such as calendars and clocks. It helps us structure and organize the chaos of our lives, while also being the source of many headaches when used improperly.

The grid dictates most layouts found in graphic design, photography, and art. You either work with it or against it, but it is nevertheless the foundation to build work off of. The grid works naturally with graphic design, however, because it helps you to communicate ideas more effectively. Though other devices are used for this (such as understanding that in Western culture most people approach pages from the top left hand corner and progress to the bottom right) the grid provides a logical order that others, not a part of the field, can understand. Therefore, the notion of breaking the grid and lacking such a structure is odd because it becomes more difficult for accurate expression. Yet, when examining the examples provided in Timothy Samara’s book “Making and Breaking the Grid”, you notice that breaking it could simply mean cropping letters, overlaying shapes (not only rectangles) to imply a grid, using angled lines or working with a Z-axis. It seems that, in graphic design, the broken grid is similar to the grid found in nature, which does not rely on purely rectangular shapes.

The grid, found in nearly every aspect of life, is both daunting and necessary for graphic design, photography, and art. It’s universality makes it an ideal tool for communicating thoughts and ideas.

In the middle of the Pacific ocean between the latitudes of 19 and 29 degrees north rests the Hawaii islands. The main eight islands (with some exception) truly provide endless possibilities professional and amateur photagraphers. Tropical weather all year long encourages many to keep their cameras charged and ready for action when the time arises. Over the years, traffic has gotten worse, the population doubled, cost of living has gone up a hundred million percent and more buildings are popping up out of nowhere disrupting what has been our scenic field of vision.

Like mentioned above, there are an endless amount of people on the islands who call themselves photographers, but there are only a handful who do it the best, and who do it full time for a living and the love. One photographer I would like to comment on is the late Jon Mozo. He perfected his art in all three possible categories here on which we call the Sandwich Islands: air, land and sea.

Jonathan Wayne Mozo or Jon Mozo was local born Filipino to father Reynaldo Mozo of the Philippines and Julia Middleton of Maryland. Due to his fathers military career, him and his three brothers traveled heavily absorbing gods beautiful creation. Upon graduating from college, Jon began to pursuing his love for photography, capturing everything and anything that contained mass. After marrying his beautiful wife Nikki, they both left the island for experience and better opportunities. He was able to gain wisdom from various studios in California, Maryland and Virginia. But that ended shortly after going through island withdrawals. They returned here to reconnect with what they missed. Upon returning, Jon Mozo realized that he wanted to make his passion a full time gig. He shot Weddings, Engagements, Portraits and landscapes.

Already perfected what he did on land, Jon focused his niche shooting natures most forceful objects, the ocean. There were many unexpected dangers that arouse from this new venture of photography that he would undertake: wild sea animals, powerful waves and even the sharp reefs. He took the challenge and gracefully captured what many local people don’t see (in depth). Jon froze beautiful moments of elegant turtles, dolphins, reefs and surfers. In 1993, Jon suffered a brutal bite from a shark resulting in a 100 stitches. Upon falling, we would get up and continue to shoot, even through the minor collisions with surfers and the shark reef. It wasn’t until February of 2005 where Jon would take his last shot doing what he did best. Failing to use his underwater helmet, Jon was hit by a terrible break on the beautiful north shore where the waves brought him to the floor of the ocean, colliding with the razor-sharp reef. After repeated attempts to revive him, Jon died later at Kahuku hospital at the age of 33.

Jon Mozo is one of the local photographers that I truly admire, for his work, and as a person. I was able to meet Jon on several occasions: my aunts wedding and at the canon office where they had his gallery showing prior to his death. I admire him due to the level of difficulty of his work and the story his pictures convey; which shows a more calm/playful side of the ocean that we rarely see. Have to tried being in the ocean, with twenty pounds of camera gear, trying to focus on your subject, capture it, while maintaining your posture without drowning ? I’ve tried it and wasn’t able to do a very good job at it. You can truly see the passion he has in his work; whether it’s capturing playful dolphins and turtles or portraying the sheer emotion of nature.

Jon Mozo’s Website

Posted by: Mark Fiesta

In response to article Photography Reborn , by Jonathan Lipkin . . .

Who killed the Polaroid? Was a title I thought of for this assignment, but then I went off on a tangent. For me, I think this article screams the notion of being able to have complete freedom and complete control. Control over reality, control over what’s being conveyed, control over the content, which ultimately gives us complete freedom.

Lipkin brings up a great point that both the advancement in technology and the shift in people’s thoughts, feelings and attitudes propelled digital photography into the forefront as a new way of creating art. The reality of a print created today is only true if produced traditionally in a dark room. Even as we upload our images onto a computer it breaks our photos down into tiny bits of data, ironically beginning the whole process of manipulation. With the leap into a digital interface, the photograph is now an image seen on a screen. However, a photograph’s transformation into another image results from the assemblage of other photographs and images. The line is drawn between the two at this point, yet the image can still become a photograph if photographed once again. The photographs we turn into images, are by our choice. That’s the ultimate control which is afforded in virtual reality.

This article made a very intuitive prediction that I’d like to point out–our acceptance of the false reality in digital photography. It was inevitable. But then again, why would photographers be so un-nerved about creating a photograph out of other photographs? If photography is considered an art form then why try to protect it from change? It would be like saying “No, I forbid you to evolve!” This goes against everything that I’ve ever understood art to be. We should remember that after moving into the era of technology, nothing is sacred.

“What will happen as modeling software becomes increasingly capable of generating photo-realistic imagery that cannot be distinguished in any way from real life?” Architectural renderings done in any 3D software today are kind of the answer to the last open ended question in Lipkin’s article. Today, I think they are the truest of false realities. However, those images are made to represent what will be versus what is make believe. Product designers and anyone else that designs for real world applications utilizes these same methods and programs. The primary use of photo-realistic renderings is to show our clients what our designs will look like in reality.

Back to the idea of freedom, digital photography has sped up the process in which artists, photographers, and anyone with a digital camera could freely express themselves. There had to have been a desire to want more freedom, to stretch the boundaries a little more because obviously, we were never satisfied. Could it be argued that the by-product of our frustrations with wanting more control and change in our creative process was the digital photograph? In any case, digital photography is an accepted art form because it allows for creative freedom.

Posted by: Tiffany Nahinu