Response paper 1. Introduction to Visual Culture.

Introduction to Visual Culture
Name of Student
Name of Institution
Tutor’s Name
Date of Submission
Introduction to Visual Culture
The ontological status of things, indicating their existence as to whether known or unknown, is a way to give an explicit distinction between two or more constraints. There exists a clear line of separation between reality and the effects of reality. There is still a pervasive sense that archaeology of our own rapidly changing perceptual world begins in the nineteenth century amid what Jean-Louis Comolli has now memorably described as “the frenzy of the visible.” This is his argument, has been used to give a clear distinction regarding the technological changes that have occurred over time. Giving the difference in the scientific differences in time following the current lurches into the twenty-first century. This is a decent case in giving the variations that could be pointed out to distinguish between reality and their effects (Crary, 2002 pg. 7-9).
In comparing the pictures, in which a representation of a painting that was done way back in the year 1818-19, the Raft of the Medusa a prominent icon by the French painter and lithographer versus a recent panorama viewing platform Copenhagen, 1880. A noticeable variance conspicuously occurs as regards the quality, general appearance and most importantly the events which have barely no similarity.
The Raft of the Medusa represents the time when 15 survivors viewed a ship approaching from a distance. According to an early British commentator, the work was set at a moment when the ruin of the raft could be said to have been completed. The painting was on a colossal scale of 491 cm by 716cm, so that most of the figures condensed are life-sized. Jonathan et al., (2002 pg. 5-25) insinuate, those who were in the foreground almost doubled life-size, moved close to the picture plane and gathering onto the viewer, who was drawn into the physical action as a contestant. The temporary raft is shown as barely maritime as it rode the deep waves, while the men were reduced as broken and in utter despair.
As for the panorama view of Copenhagen, a clear photographic fantasy emanates. One can clearly draw false anxiety about the scene before getting to that place. Travelers, those who roam the world may have the feeling of a much appealing environment to adventure. On the contrary, they may end up being disappointed by the actual experience they finally have when they get there. The difference now may be drawn from one who looks at the French painting of the cannibalism gains interest and decides to storm the place. The two places may have the opposite appearance on the actual ground, offering contrary ambience as to what the photography shows, Jonathan et al., (2002 pg. 33-43). These two differences may have been caused by the level of technology based on the quality of the photographs hence a clarity on the difference between reality and the effects.
This may be used precisely to show that the effects of reality do not determine the validity of the fact. Thus, they say, do not judge a book by its cover. People often get into the world of fantasy and get in touch with the effect of reality than they do with the reality i...