View allAll Photos Tagged Forced
Forced myself to NOT wear my favorite Mary Jane Heels. I love these, too, but the MJ's are easier to get on and off.
Ange in my mom's 1970's wedding dress and Beth in a show choir tux... together magically creepy... Huskalypse 2008. (www.huskalypse.com)
Unusual perspective but not so sure it's 'forced perspective.'
Anyway, a friend decided to check on her horses at the farm after our lunch out today. I didn't have my camera with me so this is an iPhone shot.
group: #FlickrFriday
theme: #ForcedPerspective
(a stone behaving strange in the garden of my parents-in-law)
camera: Minolta XG-2
lens: Minolta MD Rokkor 1:1,4 f=50mm
film: Kodak Ektar 100
My first attempt at forced perspective. Photo quality, especially foreground doesn't really satisfy me, but that's the best I could do :/
Nevertheless, I really hope you like it.
C&C welcome, as always. Even more perhaps ;p
Cheers,
GabryS
in places? Not so crisp as I would like it in some spots. It's hard to choose just the right fabric to help create the sense of color and light play.
But I like it.
Cover of the slovenian book : Struktura Fikcije / Humanistika in druzboslovje na periferiji
__________________________________________________
"diaptych" proposed to YSE#17 :: mess-up mess-age issue . .
Multiple messages.
How much texts fit in a text ?
How much in a picture, how much in a collage ?
How far does the medium bears the load ?
How much information can be encrypted ?
How much message stands a message ?
How many readings ?
How far the significant density can be forced / demanded / multiplied ?
How much the content layers add ?
Staggered sublevels (hierarchic or NOT-hierarchic) ?
How far the invisible architecture can be extended (how deep) ?
Launched from works exploring / exploiting this possibilities.
Works which explain and give the topic a turnover.
Which risk.
Game, mockery and humor.
Critics, the mass-media mechanisms put into evidence.
Narrations with as many readings as possible.
Mixed-media with as much message it can contain.
How much message can be stored in a can ?
----
Messages multiples
Combien de textes inscrits dans un texte ?
Combien dans une image, combien dans un collage ?
Jusqu'où le médium supporte-t-il la charge ?
Jusqu'où l'information peut-elle être cryptée ?
Combien de messages dans un message ?
Combien de lectures ?
Dans quelle mesure la consistance peut-elle être forcée / contrainte / multipliée ?
Combien de couches peut-on ajouter ?
Combien de degrés, de sous-niveaux (hiérarchisés ou non) ?
Jusqu'où l'architecture invisible peut-elle être étendue (quelle profondeur) ?
Lancement de travaux qui explorent/exploitent ces possibilités.
Travaux qui expliquent et donnent au sujet de nouveaux angles.
Quels risques.
Jeux, humour et dérision.
Critiques, les mécaniques mass-médiatiques mises en évidence.
Narrations à multiple lectures possibles.
Compositions avec autant de messages qu'il est posssible d'y inclure.
Combien de messages peuvent-ils être stockés dans une boîte ?
----
Múltiples mensajes.
¿Cuánto 'texto' entra en un texto?
¿Cuánto en una foto, cuánto en un collage?
¿Hasta dónde el medio soporta la carga?
¿Cuánta información puede encriptarse?
¿Cuánto mensaje soporta un mensaje?
¿Cuánta lectura?
¿Hasta dónde se puede forzar/exigir/multiplicar la densidad de significantes?
¿Cuánto suman / las capas de contenidos.
Los subniveles escalonados (jerárquicos, o NO-jerárquicos)?
¿Hasta dónde puede extenderse (qué tan hondo) la arquitectura invisible?
Presentado desde trabajos que exploren/exploten estas posibilidades.
Que expliquen y le den la vuelta.
Que se arriesguen.
El juego, la burla, el humor.
La crítica, la puesta en evidencia de los mecanismos de los mass-media.
Narraciones con tantas lecturas como sea posible.
Mixed-media con tanto mensaje como pueda contener.
¿Cuánto mensaje puede entrar en una lata?
__________________________________________________
Outlining a Theory of General Creativity . .
. . on a 'Pataphysical projectory
Entropy ≥ Memory ● Creativity ²
__________________________________________________
Study of the day:
. . "(...) L'objet en quoi s'inscrivent les pouvoirs, de toute éternité humaine, c'est le langage. Ou pour être plus précis, son expression obligée : la langue. Le langage est une législation, la langue en est le code. Nous ne voyons pas le pouvoir qui est dans la langue parce que nous oublions que toute langue est un classement, et que tout classement est oppressif.
(...) Jakobson l'a montré, un idiome se définit moins par ce qu'il permet de dire que par ce qu'il oblige à dire. (...) Ainsi, par sa structure même, la langue implique une relation fatale d'aliénation. Parler, et à plus forte raison discourir, ce n'est pas communiquer, comme on le répète trop souvent, c'est assujettir. (...)
La langue est tout simplement fasciste ; car le fascisme, ce n'est pas d'empêcher de dire, c'est d'obliger à dire. Dès qu'elle est proférée, fût-ce dans l'intimité la plus profonde du sujet, la langue entre au service d'un pouvoir. En elle, immanquablement, deux rubriques se dessinent : l'autorité de l'assertion et la grégarité de la répétition. D'une part la langue est immédiatement assertive. (...) Ce que les linguistes appellent la modalité n'est jamais que le supplément de la langue, ce par quoi, telle une supplique, j'essaye de fléchir son pouvoir implacable de constatation. D'autre part, les signes dont la langue est faite, les signes n'existent que pour autant qu'ils sont reconnus, c'est à dire pour autant qu'ils se répètent ; le signe est suiviste, grégaire ; en chaque signe dort ce monstre : un stéréotype. (...)
A nous qui ne sommes ni des chevaliers de la foi, ni des surhommes, il ne reste qu'à tricher avec la langue, qu'à tricher la langue ; tricherie salutaire, esquive, leurre magnifique qui permet d'entendre la langue hors-pouvoir, dans la splendeur d'une révolution permanente du langage. (...)
The purpose in which the powers of any human eternity are inscribed, is the language. Languages are legislations, each language is a code. We do not see the power that is in the language because we forget that any language is a classification, and that any classification is oppressive.
(...) Jakobson has shown it, an idiom is defined less by what he can say than by what he forces to say. (...) Thus, by its very structure, the language implies a fatal relationship of alienation. Talking, and so even more discoursing, it is not "to communicate", as repeated too often, it is "to subdue". (...)
The language is quite simply fascist ; for fascism does not prevent speech, it compels speech. As soon as it is uttered, even in the intimacy of the deepest respect of the subject, the language enters the service of a Power. In it, inevitably, two topics are emerging : the authority of the assertion and the gregariousness of repetition. On the one hand, the language is immediately assertive. (...) What linguists call the mood, is nothing but additionals of the language, by which, such a petition, we try to flex its power of its implacable determinations. On the other hand, signs of which language is made, signs exist unless "they are recognized", that is to say "they are repeated". The sign is a follower, gregarious, in each sign sleeps this monster: a stereotype. (...)
To us who are neither knights of faith, nor supermen, it only remains to cheat with the language, to cheat the language. Healthy cheating, wonderful lure which can hear the language out of power, in the splendour of a permanent language revolution.
( Roland Barthes - Extrait de la Leçon inaugurale au Collège de France, le 7 janvier 1977 )
__________________________________________________
rectO-persO | E ≥ m.C² | co~errAnce | TiLt
Shopping with my "Better Half". Comparing materials, endless opinions sought and woe betide me if my replies are inappropriate!
Ah, well, could be worse!
Just got back from a trip to Skyline Drive and Blue Ridge Parkway. Lots of photos to edit and share. this was a fun shot I tried with my husband during a sunset.
Black and white self-portraiture. Using low angle, asymmetrical details, forced perspective, and contrast to evoke a distorted scale - social constructs and the expectations of others call for us to fit inside a box - Inside the endless parameters set for us. “Life is not one-size-fits-all. This box of yours is just too small.” -J.Krauss
Picture was taken at Völklingen Ironworks in southwest Germany. This piece is a memorial to the forced labor that worked in this facility. The boxes on either side are archive boxes and evoke the identities that were stripped from forced laborers during World War II.
Unbeknownst to most, a third hand is at play in this sudden turn of events. Originally believed to have been a friendly fire incident, Agent Colter-Stevens has a hunch that he is correct in his assumption. The attack came not from without, but within. He also has a hunch that the chemicals they were transferring were something altogether different. If he was correct, time was already trickling through his fingers. He had to find out where the chemicals had got to - and the place to start was their intended destination, Hamadan.
Agent Colter-Stevens: "Update when in position, over."
Trooper Soreson: "Roger that. We have visuals on the ChemTech HQ and are in position."
Agent Colter-Stevens: "Hostiles?"
Trooper Soreson: "Negative - wait, I see two hostiles guarding the back entrance. It looks like they have some serious gear for civilians. Must be a private army of some sorts."
Agent Colter-Stevens: Proceed to eliminate them. Headshots only. No noise."
Trooper Soreson: "Copy. Headshots only."
*Agent Colter-Stevens sees the two figures crumple through his binoculars.*
Agent Colter-Stevens: Advance on the gate. I have the package."
Trooper Soreson Gate secure. Let's blow this thing!"
*Muffled explosion can be heard. The gate swings off it's hinges.*
Agent Colter-Stevens: "Okay. Radio silence from now on. Hand signals only."
_________________________
The story thickens! Catch the previous part here.
For Modern Conflict.