Comments on: Practice in my PhD http://lauragonzalez.co.uk/2008/09/27/practice-in-my-phd/ A Seductress's Journal Sun, 05 Feb 2012 10:15:58 +0000 hourly 1 By: Romelia Biss http://lauragonzalez.co.uk/2008/09/27/practice-in-my-phd/comment-page-1/#comment-1193 Romelia Biss Thu, 16 Jun 2011 18:16:16 +0000 http://lauragonzalez.co.uk/practice-in-my-phd/#comment-1193 summer work using software which helps <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWVs7KyMv1Q" rel="nofollow"><strong>twitter followers fast </strong></a>: learn more summer work using software which helps twitter followers fast : learn more

]]> By: admin http://lauragonzalez.co.uk/2008/09/27/practice-in-my-phd/comment-page-1/#comment-193 admin Thu, 02 Oct 2008 21:25:29 +0000 http://lauragonzalez.co.uk/practice-in-my-phd/#comment-193 I agree with you, Michael. An image tends to be criticized more and that is why we ask it to perform more. We say "give it to me, image" in a way that we don't of text (that's what I meant by demand). The text may know more than us sometimes, the image doesn't. We always know more and that is the reason some people go around contemporary art galleries sneering. There's very little listening of the image and the immediate response or decision you allude to is sometimes a tyranny. "the photograph touches us in an instance" you said, but what if it doesn't? Then, we ask it to touch us, we demand it. And that is what happened to me at Nottingham. It was very interesting, though, and gave much more material for my research than I initially thought. I also agree that seduction is individual. And were I to interview a sample, the answers would be different but surely they would have something in common, a trace, a glimpse of something, a recollection of a similar object. My mention of car crashes referred to JG Ballard and also to the fact that, if there is one, everybody stops to see it and not always to help. I saw a man fall on the street and that was the case. They just stood there, mesmerised. Me too, until I clicked. Funny that. Their buttons were pressed at Nottingham, THAT is what was so interesting! I agree with you, Michael. An image tends to be criticized more and that is why we ask it to perform more. We say “give it to me, image” in a way that we don’t of text (that’s what I meant by demand). The text may know more than us sometimes, the image doesn’t. We always know more and that is the reason some people go around contemporary art galleries sneering. There’s very little listening of the image and the immediate response or decision you allude to is sometimes a tyranny. “the photograph touches us in an instance” you said, but what if it doesn’t? Then, we ask it to touch us, we demand it. And that is what happened to me at Nottingham. It was very interesting, though, and gave much more material for my research than I initially thought.

I also agree that seduction is individual. And were I to interview a sample, the answers would be different but surely they would have something in common, a trace, a glimpse of something, a recollection of a similar object. My mention of car crashes referred to JG Ballard and also to the fact that, if there is one, everybody stops to see it and not always to help. I saw a man fall on the street and that was the case. They just stood there, mesmerised. Me too, until I clicked. Funny that. Their buttons were pressed at Nottingham, THAT is what was so interesting!

]]> By: Michael http://lauragonzalez.co.uk/2008/09/27/practice-in-my-phd/comment-page-1/#comment-189 Michael Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:47:31 +0000 http://lauragonzalez.co.uk/practice-in-my-phd/#comment-189 You were asking: "Why is it that we demand so much more of the image than of any text?" I don't believe we demand more from images. Couldn't it simply be the other way round? That it is much easier to criticise an image then a text? To an image we can respond immediately. We immediately can decide whether it moves us or if it does not. A text is more explicit and abstract. Time goes by, we have to listen, think and reflect. Then we have to construct an argument whether we are seduced or not. The text likely is less emotional then rational; (I haven't witnessed your 'performative text' though.) While the photograph touches us in an instance. What also comes to my mind is that seduction is a result of individual preference. While some may be seduced by car crashes others again are not. I guess if you would interview random people about seductive moments or situations you would end up with a very diverse sample. Just because YOU tick in a particular way doesn't mean others do so as well. Their buttons are pressed in different ways. And thats IMO what makes it so interesting. You were asking: “Why is it that we demand so much more of the image than of any text?”
I don’t believe we demand more from images. Couldn’t it simply be the other way round? That it is much easier to criticise an image then a text? To an image we can respond immediately. We immediately can decide whether it moves us or if it does not. A text is more explicit and abstract. Time goes by, we have to listen, think and reflect. Then we have to construct an argument whether we are seduced or not. The text likely is less emotional then rational; (I haven’t witnessed your ‘performative text’ though.) While the photograph touches us in an instance.

What also comes to my mind is that seduction is a result of individual preference. While some may be seduced by car crashes others again are not. I guess if you would interview random people about seductive moments or situations you would end up with a very diverse sample. Just because YOU tick in a particular way doesn’t mean others do so as well. Their buttons are pressed in different ways. And thats IMO what makes it so interesting.

]]>