As an aspiring photographer, I found the writings in this chapter about photography to be particularly intriguing. The concept of the "noeme" of photography is an interesting point of view. As stated on page 193 of the text. The term noeme comes from the word phenomenology, a study "devoted to the study of embodied sensory experience, which is regarded as the root of being and knowledge". A major difference between the photograph and the painting is that the photograph guaranties the presence of the camera and film with the subject. The painting guarantees no co presence with the subject.

One of the great things about the ability to reproduce images is that people can appreciate art that they probably never would have seen, otherwise. I don't think that the reproduction in any way detracts from the value of the original artwork, but it still gives the every day common man a chance to appreciate art in its reproduced form. Many artists have made an art form of reproduction itself.

I find it interesting and more than a little ironic that where we currently stand, on the issue of intellectual property, comes from a long line of Piracy. It states right in the opening paragraph that "Every important sector of "big media" today-film, records, radio, and cable TV born of a kind of piracy so defined." In fact, our founding fathers were pirates in many ways. The particular form of piracy that relates to this topic is that the U.S. refused to honor foreign patents, for the first 100 years of its being. This is stated on page 63.

I have pirated a lot of music and never really thought about the moral implications of it... until now. Just like the book says, I think that certain forms of piracy are OK... even beneficial to the owner of the intellectual property. For instance, if someone samples a friends mp3, before deciding to purchase it. If they had not sampled it, they may not have purchased it. 

There is no question that the type of piracy that I have been involved with is wrong and detrimental to the artist. People should not simply take what they want, without the owners permission, or some sort of payment. I guess that's the bottom line.

Interpolation, as described on pages 50 and 51 of the text, is an interesting concept. Understanding how the image relates to the "you" is very important to understand for someone who is going into the fields of graphic design, marketing, and advertising. 

The meanings that the producer of the work may intend may not necessarily coincide with the meanings that the viewer gets out of it. One has to consider cultural contexts. As said on page 55 of the text, "meanings are the product o a complex social interaction among image viewers, and context". This is also an important factor to take into consideration, for those going into the fields of graphic design and marketing.

Beauty, or what we find aesthetically pleasing, does not reside within the image itself, but is culturally determined, according to page 56 of the text.

It is interesting, as well, that institutions instill in us what defines good, or bad taste. Taste is also defined by class, according to page 60 in the text, as in "high brow" and "low brow" art.

Piracy

This article starts out talking about piracy and ends up talking about free culture. I'm not sure I understand the correlation. When it comes to piracy, I think there is a fine line between right and wrong. On the one hand, everything has been done... you just have to do it your own way. Every artist uses other artists as inspiration. Artists have built careers on making blatant copies of other artists work (I forget the technical term). I personally use other artists work and change it into something that is my own quite frequently. 

To blatantly just steal, or copy someone else work and profit from it is definitely wrong... but, where do you draw the line? When it comes to policing piracy... there is just not enough law enforcement to begin to make a dent in the constant flood of piracy flowing through the internet.

Yes, we have a free society... to some extent. Freer than most, I suppose... but, freedom is rapidly going the way of the Dodo.

Since this is just the introduction to this book, there is not a whole lot to respond to here. It, basically, sets the premise for the rest of the book.The title "where does information come from" baffles me. It's not the title of the section. Is that what we are supposed to be asking ourselves? 

That's too big of a question for my tiny brain. On page 15 of the text, they talk about how big media is destroying this "something new" that the internet is providing us. This reading has a lot to do with the law and how we let the "big power players" dictate what the laws are and give up our rights.

Having just started using the internet about 8 months ago. I feel woefully inadequate to describe where information comes from and who controls the internet and how. I look forward to learning more about it though.

On Page 34 it talks about the value of images. The book in particular relates the value of Van Gogh and Jackson Pollock. No one can argue that Van Gogh was a master and non with any brains and/or education can argue that Pollock was a genius. One wonders, however, how much of the current value of their work is due to their genius vs. the historical drama attached to each artist. Van Gogh was crazy. He cut off his own ear and sent it to his lost love. He later killed himself. Pollock was a notorious drunk and also suffered from severe depression. How much of the value of their work is due to the historical drama attached to it? 

Who knows? Maybe someday I will be famous.... not because I am a genius, but perhaps because I can do adequate work and I have plenty of drama in my life to make  up for it? Just a thought. Perhaps, someday after I am long in the grave, people will scramble to reproduce and counterfeit my work... Or, perhaps if I am in the right place at the right time and I can capture the right image with my camera. I do have a talent for capturing the moment.