I did some wondering over the weekend and started thinking about how cities are created, replicated, and recognized. Is there a certain set of objects a place must contain in order to classify as a city? Can these images be taken out of city and still maintain their integrity or identity as "city items"? Development of a city is a funny thing. It has to happen for a city to exist (surely objects did not amass overnight to create such a body) but rarely have we been priviledged to a specific image oriented documentation of such growth.
This is in no way a photographic display meant to showcase ability or skill. (They were taken on my cell phone in the heat of a brain storm.) So, while the quality may be sub-par I hope you'll see the underlying premise anyway.
I have selected a few photos taken on a journey and wish to know if these representative of a city, a suburb, or a rural town. You can analyze them piecewise or in totality. My main objective was to inquire whether scenes/images/objects could contain the identity of the city on their own through recognition or if inhabiting a city is the only means of acquiring such an identity. If I were to say where these were taken it would spoil the experiment but if you have any questions please feel free to approach me in class.
Alexis Brinkman
1 comments:
DL - Some of these images appear very place-specific. That is to say, they belong to a certain genre of North American cities (northeast perhaps?), whereas others appear faintly European, and therefore more difficult to pinpoint. The bicycle image reminds me of Dutch cities. Because the bicycle is so ubiquitous there as a mode of transportation, I end up noticing bicycles more when I am there, and taking pictures of them. Buildings, gates, windows (barred), certainly belong in an urban series.
Post a Comment