Jorge Luis Borges
“A book is more than a verbal structure or series of verbal structures; it is the dialogue it establishes with its reader and the intonation it imposes upon his voice and the changing and durable images it leaves in his memory. A book is not an isolated being: it is a relationship, an axis of innumerable relationships.”
Zuza’s New Book! “No fear or shame in the dignity of yr experience, language & knowledge.” - Jack Kerouac "I'm deeply sorry for the hurt and embarrassment I've
caused to those close to me and everyone this has
affected. This momentary indiscretion has jeopardized
the most important thing in my life, the person I love and
respect the most, Rob. I love him, I love him, I'm so
sorry," Stewart said in a statement Wednesday.
Kristen Stewart
Dr. Zuzanna Szatanik (Professor of Gender Studies and Literature)
.....We discussed, for example, how real thinkers and progressives have been targeted both in the United States and in Europe for being creative in terms of the activist tactics. In this respect, Zuza’s and mine work very much intersect because not only does our work attempt to uncover hidden ideological power (class-struggle, racism, sexism, lookism etc.) but how that power is used to reproduce oppressive conditions for other marginalized and oppressed voices. What is perhaps even more disturbing is how pretend progressives (people who identify themselves as victims of social and political oppression) will use strategies to shame other oppressed groups in the name of self-righteous “justice”. Often groups who deploy these heavy-handed strategies of “shame” are themselves members of highly privileged and powerful groups even though they perceive themselves as victims.
What is brilliant about Zuza’s book, De-shamed. Feminist strategies of transgression. The case of Lorna Crozier´s poetry, is that it demonstrates a very clear and compelling argument for how shame can be traversed precisely by giving voice to women. By allowing (or risking) women to voice their shame they are able to trans-gress the power that shame has had over them. As a consequence of voicing shame–women can be liberated from the power that shame has had over them both psychologically and socially (symbolically). What I especially like about the basic matrix of this book is that this same “de-shaming” strategy can be used to liberate other perceived acts of shame; indeed Zuza is brilliant in identifying the logic of shaming itself.MORE
FourMatch - Authenticate Images Instantly HERE If only I had known about this. Would have saved me hours. But I learned a lot. CORRECTION: My photoshop genius says NOTHING is as good as the human eye and a good photoshopper knows how to hack around this software. For these 4 images note the foliage. At top right the woman's hair is softly lit by the sun and tendrils are blowing in the breeze. The leaves below in all 4 images have not changed or rustled with the breeze in upper right or the bottom 2 images.
The feathery shadow immediately to the right of Kristen in upper left, and to the right of Rupert in upper right and to the right of Kristen in the bottom images are all exactly the same as it falls on the top of the fence.
If you go to the Poopsugar links you can run the cursor over the image to enlarge any portion of it. All of the images by the fence have that same feathery shadow. In some it is blurred and in others in sharper focus.
The figures do not cast any shadow on the top of the fence. Shadows can only be photoshopped in on a flat surface. To curve them around the fence is major time and who is going to notice anyway. There are shadows on the ground, that is enough.
I put Charlize Theron's face on Kristen.People easily let themselves be manipulated. Many of us become easy targets for such things.All I want to say is that people should not believe in everything that the media say or show.
Where could paps have been to take the pictures at the angle they were taken? Tell me! And 4 sets (of paps) of them?
Gimme a break!
Note here the entrance to the cul de sac (dead end) street here as its reflection in Kristen's car door is quite different. To adjust the reflection on the car door requires a particular software and expertise to produce. # 8 Poopsugar down below on the left.
Please link for the huge pictures at Gossip Cop left by Lynnette as a commenter that have been ignored by the site administrators of the "supposed" expose of false reporting in the tabloids. No one went to the site to photograph it and Lynnette took it upon herself to see it. She is a portrait painter with a good eye. Here is a nice tutorial on putting a background in for your subject. Here:http://www.flickr.com/photos/curiouskiwi/4224240250/
The foliage is particularly interesting as it is quite different from the "cheating" images. Please examine if you want to see for yourself.
Kristen's car is a black Mini-Cooper - Onyx Black. This car is Graphite Black.
Only a car OCD person would notice that one.
Also her car is flat on a sloping road. See the tires,the door.
Notice Lynnette's white car parked in the same place. It is slanted. So Kristen's car has been photoshopped in here.
Neat eh!
In the above images the shadows at Kristen's feet and Rupert's are small, less than knee high, past noon, and probably around 2 PM Daylight Saving Time and they are photoshopped in.
In #12 at Poopsugar note the outline of sunlight on Rupert's right leg from his knee down and at his heel and all the way down his left leg. It is as if the sun is hitting his legs obliquely but still falls full on the top of the fence.
The 2 sources of light in these images have been discussed in detailHEREso I won't bore you again with it. If you have not read it, then link and read as it clarifies even more IMO.
Since the sun is hitting the figures obliquely, from the west but partly shaded by the tree, why are their shadows not falling on the top of the fence? Only the one feathery shadow to the right of them, which remains the same whether Kristen is flush with the fence, or Rupert is against the fence, this shadow remains the same.
In the Poopsugar images by running the cursor over the image, you will see that sometimes it is sharper and sometimes more blurred.
But always the same feathery shadow.
And NEVER the shadows of the figures.
As if they are ghosts in the image eh!
Now why is this?
But before I tell you note the bright white surface on the top of the fence. All traces of grain in the wood have disappeared.
Here's where I got in an argument with my photoshopping expert. My reason was because the sun was shining full on the top of the fence, perpendicular to it, at right angles to it and that was why there was no grain.
No I was told. Look at Lynnette's photos of the fence and the garage door (in detail in this link) and at Gossip Cop NOT, where they are huge.
My argument continued about the sun, the 2 sources of light, but my OCD photoshopper said the smooth white at the top of the fence that made it look like plastic (it does and I had noticed and commented before that it looked like plastic) was due to, are you ready:
Gaussian Blur
WTF is Gaussian Blur?
A normal distribution is known as a Gaussian distribution curve
In photoshopping it sort of does the same thing to an area of the image you want to blur along a distribution of x number of pixels. Soften an image or an outline.
Adobe Photoshop 4,5,6 have this tool
CS6 is $699.00
If you are taking 2 images from different places, of different sizes and importing them into a background both are not going to be focused equally. One may need to be sharpened and one may need to be blurred in order to match.
This is what you will use Gaussian Blur for in these images.
In case you don't know where I am going, here it is straight out. And Gaussian Blur as you will see in the video affects the entire image. You will see it go completely black before the layer changes.
The figures were photoshopped into the fence location. The foliage was photoshopped around them. This is why they cast no shadows of their own on the top of the fence. The original location had the tree leaves casting shadows on the top of the fence. But the figures pasted in came from all different light sources and shade ones had to be chosen, and background filled in. Overlooked by the photoshopper who never expected such a keen dissection of their work. There are thousands of pap pictures of Kristen Stewart and her clothes could easily have been photoshopped on her figure to match what she was wearing the day she met Rupert Sanders by the fence.
She had to meet him there or she would know she had never been there. People have seen pics - removed now - of her carrying papers with her.
Kristen is wearing a sleeveless white T with a little pocket and yellow bra straps show at her shoulders.
It's very HOT out!
Rupert is wearing a long sleeved jacket. Is he dressing for chilly weather? I suspect all Rupert's pictures were taken at the same time as there is not the assortment to be had of him as for Kristen in all sizes, poses, attire, hair color and length whatever.
Unless he is in on this. But if he is in on this why is he not wearing a T shirt for hot weather? And why does he look like a cardboard cut out?
In addition the sizes of the two figures are going to be different. They need to be re-sized to be the right size relative to each other. And relative to the height of the fence. Lynnette is 5' 4", just 1 inch taller than Kristen (Stewart's CV lists her at 5'6" but she is 5' 3") so you can see that the top of the fence is at her breasts. Kristen's waist hits the top of the fence. The heads and faces need to be in proportion. You don't just take the figure and make it smaller. You tweak it here. And there. And over there. Until you get it right and you will probably never get it right in this instance.
Then you fill in the background around them as you must leave a space to move them into.
This is what makes the images feel off. No chemistry between them. Kristen looks uncomfortable, because they really are pap pics from another place and time.
What I cannot understand is why no journalist went to the site to investigate. The errors are glaring when you see the above images.
They are like cardboard paper dolls being moved around and positioned and the photoshopper does not know what Kristen looks like when she is turned on. Her face can be turned, inverted, her mouth, eyes, lips etc all tweaked.
Her known rings must be correct, her nail polish and you begin to see the infinite number of variables involved to get them right.
Photoshop can make you look any way the photoshopper wants you to look. Fat, thin, flexible, stiff, whatever. Amazing.
So if you don't know all this stuff you can't ask the right questions. When you look at pics, you can't observe what you are looking at.
An object does not exist until and unless it is observed. - William Burroughs
US Weekly has no such expert on their staff. They can command up to one million a year so Pixar, etc has them, not magazines. All Kristen would see was herself but not herself. She would know someone did this but not know how they did, and how good they had to be to do it. And how much software and hard drive power they had to have to do it, not to mention the skill. So how could she ever explain it and defend herself. I watched him take the layers back explaining why each one was done. There are hundreds and hundreds of layers. And still we never got to the original with no figures at all.
Someone who knew photoshopping but was not certified so could not command a minimum of 200K a year - and they would never risk their certification by doing this -
was the person who did this. 200 Grand for these images was a very nice paycheck. Each image took about 8 hours so now we see why it took so long from THAT AFTERNOON until the pictures were sold and delivered. And why the made up story doesn't match the site, the time of day for shadows, the multiple paps who were never there, etc. hue and saturation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgVpTKOhr-Y The color of the background has been highly enhanced. Add sun, take away clouds from the sky, etc
Video shows you how that greeny-green background foliage was gotten in the "cheating" pics. Not that green in Lynnette's untouched pictures.
http://www.firegraphic.com/ For painting light in a photoshopped picture. Highlighting edges sharply or softly.
________________________________________________
Well I just got back from about 4 hours of a tutorial in photoshopping. To do those pics: choices.
1. video Rupert and Liberty in poses on green screen background. Fill it in later.
2. photoshop it. From scratch or from stills taken off the video. The video is non existent for sure.
3. Photo the fence and fill in the figures.
What's needed: About a $30,000 powerful computer and about $25,000 worth of photoshop software and accessory tools as some tools do one thing and another does another.
90% of all the media companies in the US are owned by 4 mega corporations. Do not forget this statistic! The big Question: Who and Why?
I am following the groundbreaking painter Mark Tansey's article on painting before I even knew who Tansey was.
"What we have is a dialogue where the critique of one representation is by another. Art discourse is the clash of representations."
I am critiquing the faked pictures (since they are faked we can regard them as an attempt at art) through the representations of a different painting, in this case Manet's Dejeuner: http://www.artchive.com/artchive/T/tansey.html
You see one painting through another painting which gives a deeper meaning to both of them. This is post modern thinking.
US Weekly has cropped the original images so please link for the best we have available from pop sugar. The five images below were taken by a cyber-sleuth, Lynnette-Perkes, a portrait painter, at the site. Almost every viewer has remarked that something is OFF in these images. But what is it? I am reading them through Foucault's reading of Manet's Great Paintings,
If you go to pop sugar # 3 you will see this image uncropped all the way to their feet. The sun is at the back of the woman, lighting up her hair which seems caught by a breeze making a halo around her head, the brightly lit tendrils floating in the air. The light softly etches down her right arm flexed at the elbow, her hand on her waist. A slight line of light slides down her hip and then we see a line of light at her ankle as her left leg is flexed and crossed over her right, her foot pointing down and there is a small point of shadow at her toe.
The light draws a sharp line down the profile of the man, and at his mid arm where it delineates his arm from the woman's hair. Only at his instep and heel do we see the line of light again.
The two figures are in shadow. The darker shadows are at their feet and at the right elbow of the man on the white top of the fence. All these shadows are feathery as if they are the shadows of the leaves above.
The oblique light now draws softly down the lower part of the man's head, falling softly on his shoulders, then down his back and left leg to etch his leg and delineate it from the sunlit background.
The feathery shadow by the man's right hand on the top of the white fence is the same as the shadow in the above image where the man is close to the fence. Now the woman is flush against it facing away from the man as he presses close into her back.
The top of the fence is bright white from the sunlight hitting it directly, perpendicular at right angles to the top of the fence.
We see then two sources of light. One source coming from behind the figures and one source cutting directly in front of them falling full on the top of the fence. If you go down to the images taken a few weeks ago at this site, the fence appears like unpainted gray, weathered wood in shadow. If you look at the 2nd image below (and please go to Gossip Cop for this commenter's own pictures as they are quite large and detailed and untouched.) The garage door to the right is the same weathered wood as the fence and is quite gray in this image. If you go to the 5th image you will see that the sun has changed position (or rather our earth) and is hitting the garage door in full sunlight and has bleached it white.
What is disconcerting about this picture is that there are two sources of light.
But we know that there are NOT 2 suns in the sky.
Clearly something is OFF and the two suns in the sky has been what has confused people without their being aware of it.
The picture is split in two by the line of grass. ....you have a lighting which is a traditional lighting with a light source coming from above, from the left, which sweeps the scene, which illuminates this large meadow from the bottom, which strikes the back of the woman, which models her face...and this light comes to an end here on two clear bushes...You have, therefore, a triangular lighting which sweeps the woman's body and models her face: traditional lighting, classical lighting which leaves the relief and which is constituted by an interior light.
Luncheon On the Grass (Le Dejeuner) Manet 1863
Now, if you take the figures in front, what characterizes them is the fact that they are lit by a completely different lighting which is frontal and perpendicular, which strikes, as you see, the woman and this entirely nude body, which strikes it from directly opposite: you see that there is absolutely no relief, no modeling. The woman's body is a sort of enamel as in Japanese painting. The lighting comes only brutally and from opposite. ...the two dark jackets of these two men, are the culminating and end points of this frontal lighting, just as the two bushes here were the dazzling and culminating points of the interior lighting: an exterior lighting blocked by the bodies of two men and an interior lighting repeated by the two bushes.
These two systems of representation, or rather these two systems of manifesting light inside a picture, are juxtaposed here in this very canvas, are in a juxtaposition which gives this picture its slightly discordant character, its internal heterogeneity; an internal heterogeneity which Manet tried in a way to reduce or perhaps rather to underline - I don't know - by this hand ....which is in the middle of the picture. (Manet And The Object of Painting - Michel Foucault pp.60-62) Le Dejeuner produced a great scandal in the Paris art world.
A car at the entrance to this cul de sac road. Note the foliage here. And do link to the very large pictures where a commenter did the work that Gossip Cop pretends to do. Her name is Lynnette, she is 5' 4" just 1 " taller than Kristen Stewart, and she is a professional portrait painter, and is the figure standing by the fence to indicate her size relative to the height of the fence.
See her web page - many of her portraits are there and she lives in San Diego CA.
The sun now falls obliquely but strongly enough to bleach the garage door in the above 2nd image.
Please stay with me as I am next going to go into an extensive analysis of the photo shopping in everyone of these photographs by the fence, in order to leave you with no excuse to damn
Kristen Stewart for "cheating".
Because we all know that there are NOT 2 suns in the sky.
