Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Julie H, Jun 17, 2017.
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?
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...
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!"
because i wasn't interested in what you wrote, i was interested in the ideas u were writing about.
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.
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.
proving it is
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?)
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.
jesus fkg christ, proving is a verb, creativity is a mass noun. Phil's post was bullshit.
One of the definitions of great architecture is if it "...is still great as a ruin." Perhaps what our modern cities are missing are great ruins? We routinely design buildings with an intended life expectancy of 50 years. Most minor buildings don't make it even that long, and the materials used in many modern buildings are only viable for about that long. We live in a world that has become acquisitive of the disposable. Those artifacts that outlive their first use are becoming rare, and collectible, while the objects around which our lives seem to revolve, such as cell phones, cars, etc., are tossed away in a moment. It will be very interesting to see in the coming years if we re-evaluate our valuation of things, or if the cycle of acquisition and disposal continues to accelerate.
david, if it's not too much to ask, could you stop mentioning architecture in every post u make? or, at least, get Jules/Sup. to p…
cool , and cheap at 1/2 the price. no doubt phil's sales are going to pay for them.
David, I like your third photo. It has so much dynamism going on. The mountains and the valley seem so alive. We have a phrase in my native language, "to view the ocean in a water drop". This huge glacial valley started with a few cracks in the ground, the embryo. If I am allowed to reach a little further, the shape of the canyon in your photo is reminiscent of a womb.
Never heard of Octavio Paz?
Octavio Paz - Biographical
Honestly, I didn't find the poems that hard to decipher. If there is any doubt, the text quoted right below the first poem expands and provides hints that are hard to miss. As for the second poem, poetry fills the space between our conscious outer world and inner world of thoughts and imaginations. If I think of it further, poetry fills the crack/fissure between both worlds, and like David's glacial valley, expands and grows. A poet can realize that by looking at the crack in a teacup. That was IMO the point of the first poem.
c'mon supriyo, don't be so derogatory. everyone's heard of OP
I have a longish post to follow this one that will be, as it should be, on the topic: Cracks and Bridges in the Philosophy of Photography forum. For those of you who've contributed to the discussion of that subject so far, thank you! Please wait about twenty minutes for me to get my post semi-organized and posted, below. But first, this has to be said:
As I've noted a number of times before, it absolutely fascinates me that people who hate my posts nevertheless read them obsessively, and seem to hang on my every word. If you don't like what I write, don't read it. How hard is that? I will continue to write what I want to in the way I want to write it — on the topics posted.
If my words make you unhappy, click on my avatar and do this:
something wants to get out
Science describes cracks in mathematical terms that have to do with tension and compression and material strength. It's all dry and tidy and "just" physics. That's not as it should be. Physics should be scary: you should feel it. Because:
something wants to get out.
I love that. Think about it in conjunction with an egg hatching. What is it about the crack(s) that is so interesting? Is it what we know, or what we don't know about what's happening?
something wants to get out
There is *something* important (dangerous? desirable?) on the other side. Even in a teacup that cracks, it's not the tea that makes the crack fascinate us: it's that it's not the tea, because we've had tea in that cup a thousand times before and it didn't crack.
something wants to get out
When Doris Salcedo installed an enormous crack in the floor of Tate Modern, it was noticed that, in addition to people being fascinated by and/or fearful of the crack, many of them went to great lengths (lying or kneeling on the floor) to see what was inside of the crack.
something wants to get out
Butt cracks are beautiful. Or at the very worst, very interesting. You have to look.
That was the origin of my post just prior to this one. Why do butt cracks draw the eye?
First I'm thinking, because they point to genitalia, because excreting is funny, because they are the join (bridge) of the two legs, because they're not supposed to be seen. And I'm thinking ... [shaking my head]. No ... that's not it. If there were only one butt bump and no crack, it wouldn't work (there are creatures like this: with just a hole and no crack). There's something about cracks ... a single big butt or breast with no crack is just a bump. A crack has two not-quite matching sides that need each other (otherwise it becomes a hole, which is "damage" which can be purely accidental). Not parallel, and not too far apart. And you can't see inside.
Good thing that wasn't what I posted.
[again, thank you for those who are contributing pictures and thoughtful discussion to the topic]
Separate names with a comma.