Helvetica, it's a font that is so commonplace in our landscape, we don't even notice it. From the MTA subway signs to that American Apparel store on 23rd between Park and Lexington (you've probably passed it at some point) Helvetica is the quitessential sans-serif typeface seen all over New York. In fact, it's so common, an entire documentary on the typeface was made, which I've seen, and taught me how universal this typeface is.

After reading "Photography's Discursive Spaces," I was incredibly frustrated. The author's use of  comparisons between photography and painting and scientific versus aesthetic made it difficult for me to see her point of view. I think that the act of comparison within the art world is a huge problem. Comparison seems to open the door for the potential to make the assumption that all art is on the same level for every person and therefore a comparison between photography and painting is no different than a comparison between architecture and music.

Both class visits we have made, one to the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and the other to the International Center of Photography offered two unique versions of Paris. The MET exhibit cataloged the transformation of Paris under Emperor Napoleon III and his master planner Georges-Eugene Haussman in the mid 19th century that turned Paris into the City of Light. The ICP exhibit gave a shared vision of Paris, post World War II, and sought to remind the city of its former grandeur created by Haussman, and seen through the lens of Richard Avedon.

Recognize this?

Sure, it's Dorthea Lange's Migrant Mother (1936), an iconic image of the Great Depression that appeared in newspapers nationwide. 

 I was captivated by John Woods' art. The first thing I encountered upon entering the exhibit was a quote "maybe the time has come for creative photography to encompass the large problems without propaganda or journalism. I was intrigued by this, and wondered how that concept was going to become realized through his art.