In chapter 1 “Techology as a Tool”, Paul mentions the impact the medium of photography has on the advertising industry. A statement I enjoyed was “in the aesthetics of advertising, the ‘image’ makes the fluent transition from mere representation to branding, in which is it is inscribed with a concept of value.”

I understand the transition to be the quick understanding when a viewer no longer sees just a pair a shoes on a poster but sees a Nike or Jimmy Choo shoe. Like most art pieces the photography of an advertisement is meant to transfer a message to an audience. I find that the message of an advertisement can be less abstract when compared to art that does not represent a brand but represents an artist’s unique style. I believe  that an advertisement is unique to the particular brand it cannot be replicated for another brand. For example when a ad is unique to a brand no other brand can just stamp their logo on the image without someone saying, “doesn’t this ad look like a McDonald ad when it’s a Wendy’s ad.”

An art work I enjoyed was KIDING, I love Calpe because although the photo manipulation of a blur is simple, my eyes were focused on the thumbnails logos. If this advertisement was placed next to another advertisement that had a fully focused image, it can catch your eye because the blur is unusual. Having an advertisement with a blur background is risky but can bring attention because it can cause a wonder because it is not focusing on the image but on the focus content.

I found it interesting how Paul explained the term “new” media by tracing back to the history of digital art. This got me thinking about the evolution of digital art because photography is possible without an actual camera but with a phone. I would like to do more research on what effect do smartphones have on digital photography.