It's certainly anyone's prerogative to say, 'I liked something more when it was this' or blah blah. But there's a kind of laziness as a consumer of entertainment, I think, to wish that something was repeating itself and doing the same thing. But to each their own, and I do it all the time. I've dropped television shows as a viewer.
There was a stage inside it and a crank on the outside that would rotate something, like a tiny tree carved of cork, onto the stage, and then the thousands of little mirrors would multiply that one tree so that the viewer would see an infinite forest instead.
The expectations of the viewer are what you're asking about. And the expectations of the viewer are manifold. However, they are very fixed, given who I am in the world. People have certain expectations of me as an artist.
I don't really think that the technique really determines the veracity of the image. It's what the image does to the viewer that determines whether it's right or wrong.
The better the coverage, the more discriminating the viewer.
Television is a non graded curriculum and excludes no viewer for any reason, at any time. In other words, in doing away wtih the idea of sequenece and continuity in education, television undermines the idea that sequence and continuity have anything to do with thought itself.
People who look at art don't really - don't go with the artist. They don't sort of accept what he or she has done and kind of go with it. There are always - either there's too much color or not enough color, either it's not conceptual enough or it's too conceptual. In other words, most criticism isn't what the viewer expected that it would do based on what they think you have done and that's good as far as I'm concerned.
The viewer who sees only a study in the picture of the glass jug illuminated from behind fails to appreciate the masterly composition, the noble purity of the lines, the rich plasticity of the form and consequently also the poetry and beauty of the picture, and still more important, its specifically photographic qualities.
As a viewer myself, I tend to gravitate toward projects that have a really strong voice of a strong creator.
The viewer brings all additional information to the image.
I'm always careful about the thing I'm writing to make sure a viewer can imagine it happening to themselves.
The modern reader (or viewer, or listener: let's include everybody) is perilously overloaded. His attention is, to use the latest lingo,'targeted' by powerful forces? Our consciousness is a staging area, a field of operations for all kinds of enterprises, which make free use of it.
You can't help some increase from this point. I don't want any viewer to go away think a magic wand exists in Congress. So they're going to see some more bad news. But if we do this, we're doing the right thing.
I have great faith in the intelligence of the American viewer and reader to put two and two together and come up with four.
A photograph is a mirror; mostly it reflects the prejudices of the viewer.
It`s always fun when somebody who you admire and respect is the voice - is your voice, as a viewer.
What's really important is to simplify. The work of most photographers would be improved immensely if they could do one thing: get rid of the extraneous. If you strive for simplicity, you are more likely to reach the viewer.
I understand all the work to be of a nonabstract nature regardless of the style, form, or explicit subject matter because all the work. . . is concerned with evoking experiences that are in themselves - and their relationship to you, the viewer - the ultimate subject and content of the work. I want to equate the experience of the work with its meaning.
In episodic TV you have to keep things secret to keep the viewer in suspense.
Source of inspiration. The MAK is a museum that has had a profound effect on me as an artist and art viewer.
