Capturing the moment or thinking you are?

<p>Phylo--</p>

<p>Seems like a good description to me, especially because it recognizes that the photo is real and becomes part of reality. I especially like "[T]he original continues to be, but without being copied."</p>

<p>Could you say a bit more about the subtraction. I'm not seeing that something is "subtracted" from the original, but rather that what's in the world are raw materials that are used in the making of something. It is true that some people look at having their pictures taken, for example, as having something stolen from them and I do see some street snaps as "stealing." But I wouldn't want to maintain that the photographer always subtracts from his subject.</p>

<p>Also, I think there's a danger in talking about the "original," because it can lead to the kind of thinking that assumes a "copy" ensues. There are many other things going into the making of a photograph besides this so-called original (the subject). There is isolation within a frame, the particular moment in which the subject is photographed, the perspective of the photographer, what he or she brings to the occasion, the settings of the camera which must affect the subject. The original (the subject), can't really be stripped of these other aspects. Reality, I think we agree, is contextual. So talking about originals and copies seems to fall into the area of those types of dichotomies that don't tell the complete story.</p>

<p>Tegmark's more cute than "rigorous"..favors verbal constructions over ideas.</p>

<p>There are, as we all know, multiple "concensus" understandings of photography (consensii?).</p>

<p>Julie's right about ONE concensus: Photos are "of" something for many or most people. </p>

<p> Other populations have worried that photos stole souls... yet others talk about "images" rather than "of-ness" or "subject." </p>

<p>Remember Stieglitz? Equivalents?</p>

<p>"Of-ness" ( "copy" ?) seems the concensus of bird, travel, catalog, portrait, sports, and wedding photographers to name a few. But the consensus of camera users of the "artist" persuasion (or pose) has more to do with "image" than "of-ness." Stieglitz? Equivalents?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>And while we're on esoterics, let's not forget the observer effect - the very act of taking the photograph changes the subject, so the photo can never capture the 'truth'...</p>

<p>the lawn needs mowing - enjoy camera life!</p>

<p>significant 45 seconds: <a href="http://www.sportsbookbettingpromotions.com/050409-youtube-2009-kentucky-derby-winner-mine-that-bird.html">http://www.sportsbookbettingpromotions.com/050409-youtube-2009-kentucky-derby-winner-mine-that-bird.html</a></p>

<p>The aerial view is even better....around 7:45.</p>

<p>Is this a copy of a horse race?</p>

<p>I wonder if Philosophers should be allowed to have cameras. How can they depress a shutter button without giving themselves an anxiety attack?</p>

<p>LOL!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Could you say a bit more about the subtraction. I'm not seeing that something is "subtracted" from the original, but rather that what's in the world are raw materials that are used in the making of something.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred-<br /> The subtraction is not so much to be taken as anything becoming lesser because something is being ' subtracted ' from it, but much more as the spark of recognition that allows for looking closer at something particular, by ' subtracting ' all the things that surrounds it, which would be the wider scope that is the original ( which I take to be reality as the photographer or artist experiences it ) . The photographer and / or artist indeed starts from the worlds raw materials, from what's available for him/her and then adds something to this reality, some new viewpoint or perspective, a specific context is added.</p>

<p>I see this subtracting and adding up without the divide in value that the terms might allude to and as a simultaneous understanding or recognition of different contexts within and of the original, which is our own perception of reality, not necessarily reality.</p>

<p>

<em></em>

<br>

 

<p><em>I totally agree that capturing is different from recording and all this debate should be about the capacity of photographs to really capture a single moment and the difficulties we, as human beings limited by our senses, have in understand such peculiarities.</em><br>

 

<p>Hmm, try taking some images of a hummingbird to clarify that you are recording an interval of time in a single image.</p>

</p>

</p>

<p>Phylo--</p>

<p>Thanks. Got it. Yes. I agree. I think often about the effects of isolating something by framing it with a camera. Subtracting peripheral vision, sometimes wide areas of context, etc. is part of the deal. And I agree that the subtraction is value free when used the way you are using it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It is perhaps best captured by a quotation I read recently: <em>"Taking picutes is savoring life intensely, every hundredth of a second"</em> - marc riboud</p>

</blockquote>

<p>"...which is our own perception of reality, not necessarily reality." </p>

<p>Verbal renditions of phenomena and ideas always return to square one unless they're entirely irrational, in which case they precede square one. QED</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can you explain or limit what it is that is meant by "event" of which you say a photo is made of "several" and also, what is "a single frame" of which a photo is "never"?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What I meant is the following: to take a photo is to register an interval of time, as several comments in this thread has also explained and agreed. Considering that you are never capable of determine or capture/register a single frame - what you do is to capture/register a sequence of events that, by the limitations of our senses, appears to our eyes and mind like if it is just one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Impressionists did not <em>copy</em> nature, they were more concerned withsome of those <em>qualities</em> you spoke of when referring to the apple: color, texture, light, movement. I wouldn't say that Monet didn't paint haystacks. He did. But I don't think he painted copies of haystacks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Using the example of the Impressionists you've just confirmed my thesis that sometimes we are copying a representation of something when we photograph! A representation, but still a copy.<br>

I know I am not being able to follow-up every post, specially those who are questioning my initial proposition - I'll promise I'll try to catch up things in the weekend...</p>

<p>Please keep posting once I think many good points of view are appearing and the debate is exciting.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Using the example of the Impressionists you've just confirmed my thesis that sometimes we are copying a representation of something when we photograph!"</p>

<p>When you have time, please explain the logic that gets you to this conclusion. I don't understand how you've moved from what I said about Impressionism to the idea that a photograph is a copy of a representation. What are the steps that lead you from Impressionists expressing something about the qualities of nature to photographers photographing copies of representations?</p>

<p>Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometime a picture is just a picture!</p>

<p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p >"...which is our own perception of reality, not necessarily reality."</p>

<p >Verbal renditions of phenomena and ideas always return to square one unless they're entirely irrational, in which case they precede square one. QED</p>

</blockquote>

<p > </p>

<p >John-</p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong> " Experience is as close to "reality" as we will ever get. " </strong>That's what you wrote a couple of posts back and I can agree with it. The agreement of that statement doesn't exclude however that reality is as close to reality as we<strong> could</strong> ever get. I think the division of experience ( our perception ) and " reality", the possibility that the mind can distinguish between those two concepts like you did, acknowledges this, that we can talk ( of it being real ) about our<strong> perception of reality</strong> vs reality, or more logically put perhaps : I believe that we can distinguish between the concept of reality vs our perception of it without giving over to irrationality. In either case, something being irrational or rational doesn't change anything but exposes our chosen fixed ( but adjustable ) point of reference towards reality. As it's not reality itself that makes things irrational or rational, but our perception of it. In this knowing one finds the latent proof...</p>

 

 

 

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When you have time, please explain the logic that gets you to this conclusion. I don't understand how you've moved from what I said about Impressionism to the idea that a photograph is a copy of a representation. What are the steps that lead you from Impressionists expressing something about the qualities of nature to photographers photographing copies of representations?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Fred<br>

The steps were as follows: when you say "The Impressionists did not <em>copy</em> nature, they were more concerned withsome of those <em>qualities</em> you spoke of when referring to the apple: color, texture, light, movement", I understand that, when trying to express those qualities in their paintings, they were nothing but <strong>painting a representation of something</strong> they envisaged in a particular object (or scene if you like). If one, for instance, gave importance to the texture of apple and tried to refer to that in a particular drawing, what he was implicit doing was extracting a particular element that composes the totality of that apple and representing it in his painting. So, if I do the same with photography (if I try to extract from something an element of it) I am copying a representation of such characteristic.</p>

<p>Photos are echos of light.</p>

<p>" As it's not reality itself that makes things irrational or rational, but our perception of it. In this knowing one finds the latent proof..." - Phylo</p>

<p><strong>Phylo, perception cannot be "irrational" because rationality applies to verbalization, not to perception.</strong> </p>

<p> Calling a perception "irrational" would be like calling a concept "orange." </p>

<p>Let me try again: You evidently think perceptions can be expressed verbally. That's a fundamental error IMO. Concepts are typically verbal, but perceptions are sensory ("sensory" specifically involves sense organs of touch, sight, sound...we have many biological experiences that seem not to be sensory). When someone calls their concept a "perception" they are mis-speaking as much as they would if calling perceived "orange" a concept. </p>

<p>"Orange" specifies a range of objectively measurable color involving yellow and magenta, which are themselves objectively measurable. In other words, "orange" is a phenomenon in "reality." Perhaps you'd agree that "reality" is a concensus involving factors that can be tested relatively "objectively," not merely debated, and agreed upon by most humans ? Or do you disagree with that concensus?</p>

<p>Perceptions are direct biological responses to physical "reality," whereas concepts (and philosophical formulations and perhaps "art") are inherently not, they are second-hand. <em>(The emotional beauty in second hand enterprises, such as "art" and "philosophy" may have to do with nostalgia, but that's another discussion) . </em></p>

<p>Photography deals directly with perceptions, but it also gives us a second-hand realm in which to play conceptually...we can talk philosophy, lenses, methods, make aesthetic reviews etc.</p>

<p><strong>Word games (eg concepts), fun though they may be, are inherently incapable of coming to grips as directly with some of the "reality" of perception (eg sight, sound) as can photography, audio recording, video, and technological convergence...</strong><br>

<strong></strong></p>

<p> </p>

<p>How did we learn our colors? </p>

<p>"Orange" is a specific combination of electromagnetic frequencies, and it is a sensation in my head when that specific set of frequencies hits the retina of my eye and excites some nerves that end up exciting some neurons in my brain to produce a sensation I have learned to call, "orange". I call it that because every time I experienced that sensation, my parents told me to call it "orange" not because it is orange.</p>

<p>It is vital to remember that, although we all call it "orange" when we get that sensation in our brains, we have no way of knowing if the sensation, the experience I have when I experience "orange", is the same as anyone else's. Language will prevent us from ever finding out. It is highly likely that we all have different sensations when we experience "orange" and we will never be able to "grok" another's experience of the color. </p>

<p>So there is a "reality" of orange, and an experience of orange, and it's not a word game. Well, the "reality" part may be a word game after all.</p>

<p>"If one, for instance, gave importance to the texture of apple and tried to refer to that in a particular drawing, what he was implicit doing was extracting a particular element that composes the totality of that apple and representing it in his painting."</p>

<p>Alexandre--</p>

<p>OK. I understand your thinking better. Thanks. I'm with you in thinking of "representation" more along the lines of "signifying" than of "copying." Signs are important. But they don't just point back to the source. They lead in many directions.</p>

<p>Your use of "representation" and "copy" seems object-oriented. For me, it leaves out how stuff looks and feels. Sometimes, it's about how a photo looks or makes me feel, not what it looks <em>like</em> or what it makes me think <em>of</em>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Phylo, perception cannot be "irrational" because rationality applies to verbalization, not to perception.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't said that perceptions are irrational. What I said was that perceptions start from a point of reference, and it is this point of reference that we use to form our concept of reality, which might be irrational. Our concept of reality is indeed a concensus, meaning NOT unanimous. Philosophy, the mother of science, is not a democracy, which any form of concensus would suggest, if it was...the earth would still be flat.</p>

<p>While I agree with the concencus that makes up our concept of reality, here and now, formed by our perceptions, I do acknowledge that it is never permanently fixed and likely to change and shift, either in the broader single scope of our concept of reality or in every other small part that makes up the whole. You conveniently narrow down your definition of perceptions to our reaction or response to physical reality ( > " Perceptions are direct biological responses to physical "reality," " ) which wrongly cancels out that perceptions are as equally about mental impressions and awareness, intuition, as they are about our direct response to physical (= measurable ) reality.</p>

<p>I think perceptions are neither rational nor irrational, as it all depends from the point of reference. The phantom pain or itch that the man with no legs has a perception of in his right leg is very much real for him, while for those of us not handicapped in such a way it may seem irrational. I think the brain is neither rational nor irrational, but your point against the ' irrationality of perception ' ( which I never took claim of ) seems to suggest a rationality to which everything can be measured up against. I don't believe in this.</p>

<p>Which isn't to say that I refute the consencus of our concept of reality, but to put it semi-poetic, I see this concept as a valley of perceptions in which we move slowly and deliberately but without ever knowing the path that lays before us, let alone know what is behind the steep hills that surround us both left and right. This valley of perception, which is all we've got here & now, might as well be the valley of deception.</p>

<p>QED - proven knowledge, yes. And : - " Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand. " - Albert Einstein</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Phylo, I've not conveniently narrowed the definition of "perception," I've used the word in the most rigorous way. Extending that term to a mental (conceptual, non sensory) process is a deceptive stretch...poetic license doesn't apply here :-)</p>

<p>One's "sensorium" (famous old-fashioned physiological psychology term) is the universe that one feels, sees, tastes, smells...the "reality" we are aware of on the basis of our senses, having nothing to do with the ruminations of Einstein. Bristol Palin, and everybody else, knows as much about "reality" as did Einstein.</p>

<p>A <a href="http://www.neublack.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/ascii-art-portrait.jpg">picture</a>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your use of "representation" and "copy" seems object-oriented. For me, it leaves out how stuff looks and feels. Sometimes, it's about how a photo looks or makes me feel, not what it looks <em>like</em> or what it makes me think <em>of</em> .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred<br>

I agree with you that many times a photo can make us feel something - isn't this feeling just another form of representation?</p>