Cracks and Bridges (symbols)

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Julie H, Jun 17, 2017.

  1. I watched a Belgian documentary recently on California's music history and it mentioned this poem by Tupac Shakur from the same titled collection of his poems :

    The Rose That Grew From Concrete

    Did u hear about the rose that grew from a crack
    in the concrete
    Proving nature's laws wrong it learned 2 walk
    without having feet
    Funny it seems but by keeping its dreams
    it learned 2 breathe fresh air
    Long live the rose that grew from concrete
    when no one else even cared!
     
  2. Actually the fact that Julie posted these "the obvious made dense" quotes from poets I've never heard of over what appears as venting over a FedEx driver's concern for self preservation from crossing a bridge that might not be up to code prevents me from being outraged by the pretentiousness of the meaningless quotes.

    How did that happen?! Amazing, I'm not pissed off! I'm actually laughing as I write this.

    These quotes are how Julie expresses derision. It all makes sense now!
     
  3. Julie provided a literal (humorous) example from her own daily experience about the more figuratively 'salvation' or 'damnation' of crossing a bridge. I would expect the driver bringing mail to drive up to my house unless there's something in the fine print that says they won't get off the main road. Anyway I would also put up a sign for the FedEx driver saying the bridge is safe and to come over for a talk and drink.

    As for the tired pose of anti-intellectualism, it doesn't make you look as cool as you probably think it does.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2017
  4. I just can't resist: towels4.jpg
     
  5. Where do you see intelligence in Julie's quotes, Phil? Where do you see anti-intellectualism in this thread? And why do you think you can speak for everyone about what is intelligent discourse?

    Those poems are just conscious inner voice riffing only the author can know its meaning and others can only read into as Julie demonstrated in her OP. Just because one sees them self as an intellectual doesn't guarantee they're able to communicate emotions or thoughts effectively. Same goes for those that read into something no one else gets. I guess if I was in an hallucinogenic state from a fevered mind and those quoted poems opened up a mind blowing whole other world for me, I still wouldn't consider this the mark of intelligence. It doesn't make the world a better place except for the self absorbed.
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2017
    Norman likes this.
  6. A two-fer
    cracks_266-w.jpg
     
  7. Norman

    Norman Norman T Naffington

    i love the pro/anti intellectual debate. for all their research, Phil & Julie are remarkably ordinary at describing photos. a couple of examples, first from Phil

    A seemingly small thing that meant and still means the world to me when I look at it because of all the ( small ) things that had to happen for me to be there at that moment at that exact spot to take a picture of...fate, a found memory, a lost dream...? Some kind of sensation that I can't put into words.


    "fate, a found memory, a lost dream" are straight out of purple prose 101 and are embarrassing. as for not being able to put it into words, why didn't Phil just list the small things that had to happen before he took the photo? why summarize it with BS?

    this is one of my all time favourites from Julie, it's absurdity defined

    There's beauty that belongs to the scene, and there's beauty that's off to one side; the last picture is happening somewhere else


    and don't get me started on Julie's pretentious picture/photograph distinction (of which Julie herself can't even elucidate )

    does the fact that Phil & Julie love well written, intellectual stuff make them intellectual when their own writings are mediocre? and should we even care?
     
  8. In places like Zion Canyon, cracks in the rock wall have multiple layers of expression and meaning:
    1) A crack is a fault or vein of weakness in the surrounding stone. It is the part of the stone that fails first under stress.
    2) A crack makes the inner heart of the mountain accessible, to the elements, to flora and fauna, to people (well, I guess we're fauna),and to the imagination.
    3) A crack becomes the collector of, the conduit for, and the fountain from which springs, water, that most precious of desert resources.
    4) A crack is a canyon in embryo...
    Thus:
    Zion Waterfall-4993b-sml.jpg
    And:
    ZNP Waterfall-5154c-bw-sml.jpg
    Ultimately...
    Zion Waterfall-5020a-bw-sml.jpg
     
  9. Tim, intellectualism has nothing to do with intelligence in the sense that if one is an 'anti-intellectualist' it doesn't mean a lack of intelligence. I see alot of anti-intellectualism in your posts. Do you agree with that or not? Nevermind I don't care for the answer.

    Norman, why didn't you tell me that you thought it was all BS earlier and in the Small Things thread. It would have spared both of us the time from interacting with each other in a thread that is about the world of ideas and feelings as much as it is about the world of things.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2017
  10. I will say this: Julie and I see creativity and its application to photography in very different ways, mostly. Yet, her questions regarding symbolism and meaning in photography are as apropos to what we do here as those same themes would be to painting, sculpture, poetry, dance, or any other of the representational arts. That's why they are so well conceived to the Philosophy forum. Cheap shots intended to demean her efforts are unworthy of this forum, and most certainly undeserved. If the shoe fits, wear it... In the inimitable words of Charlie Brown: "Good grief!"
     
  11. David, I like your idea of illustrating the huge timespan in the pictures. It would make for an interesting triptych, beginning with just a crack in the ground.
     
    DavidTriplett likes this.
  12. Norman

    Norman Norman T Naffington

    because i wasn't interested in what you wrote, i was interested in the ideas u were writing about.
     
  13. Norman

    Norman Norman T Naffington

    i find everything you say in your faux victorian way nauseating but you raise an important issue. u aren't creative, for sure, and yet u think Julie is. Prove it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2017
  14. Creativity isn't science.
     
  15. I will, politely, decline to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, much less one who is incompetent in the lingua franca of this forum.
     
    Supriyo likes this.
  16. Norman

    Norman Norman T Naffington

    proving it is
     
  17. Phil, time is the backstory to all of the Colorado Plateau. Every geologic feature is about time and the application of erosive forces over nearly incomprehensible eons and epochs. Cracks and water are just the current manifestation of forces that have been in play for billions of years. To get a real feeling for the psychological impact of the immensity of time exposed in the rocks of the Grand Canyon, I recommend Colin Fletcher's The Man Who Walked Through Time.
    (I pray Norman is nauseated to the point of puking all over his keyboard. Wouldn't that be a relief?)
     
  18. My take on the intellectualism/anti-intellectualism controversy is that both, in their extremes, are obnoxious. When intellectualism loses all sense of groundedness and pragmatic application, it becomes an exercise for the ego alone and tends to lose itself in an ether with a stench. When anti-intellectualism is a knee-jerk reaction to education, sophistication, or the study of history and culture, it becomes fake populism or faker demagoguery. The reason the PHILOSOPHY of PHOTOGRAPHY forum has so much potential to be cool is that the name of the forum seems to suggest both an intellectual and a practical approach.

    My take on proving creativity is to agree that creativity is not a science, which is why I wouldn't take the "proof" as related to creativity to imply the same thing as the word "proof" when applied to science. While a proof in science may be a series of logical premises and conclusions and/or mathematical-like steps, a proof in creativity can be a matter of defining what qualities a creative person has and then showing specifically that such and such a person has those qualities, which would usually require some sort of assessment or critique of the work which is claimed to be creative. Otherwise, everything is creative because someone says it is, by declaration, and I find that unacceptable. Just because something isn't a science doesn't mean it can get away with anything.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2017
    sjmurray and DavidTriplett like this.
  19. David, yes, the effects of time that can be sensed in such a raw landscape sculpted by time is being lost in the modern world. Cities too as they grow larger and larger (a living organism) have the effects of time in them but on a much smaller scale. I will check out the book, thanks.
     
  20. Norman

    Norman Norman T Naffington

    jesus fkg christ, proving is a verb, creativity is a mass noun. Phil's post was bullshit.
     

Share This Page