another angle on "interpretation"

ernest-b · September 29, 2010

Ernest B. wrote: "Assuming you're referring to the concept in the sense of "nature's tendency, in isolated systems, to take things from order to disorder" it seems to me that an act of (artistic) creation embodies the opposite of entropy (i.e., the bringing of disparate elements into a new order)--no matter what may happen, subsequently, to the created art itself."

Luis wrote: "It would seem that way, or that life does the same thing, but in reality, both speed up overall entropy. Whether in the materials and energies spent in production, or in the case of life, think of what we turn the food of our sustenance into. The rest of what I said is more important, IMO, than the entropy comment." -------------------------- * "It would seem that way, or that life does the same thing, but in reality, both speed up overall entropy."

Luis, I still don't understand how, or why you perceive this to be the case.

--------------------------

* "Whether in the materials and energies spent in production, or in the case of life, think of what we turn the food of our sustenance into."

We turn "the food of our sustenance" into either energy or new forms of biochemical matter, in order to sustain and transmit our genes to the next generation (and to create art). The detritus of these processes, in both the biochemical and the artistic senses, is excreted back into the environment--where fungi, bacteria, oxidation, Photo.net fora, etc., are constantly at work breaking it down further, preparing its constituent elements for reconstitution into new forms of life (or art), in a new "anti-entropic" process within new or different "isolated systems".

And all the various "isolated systems" in which entropy (2d law of thermodynamics) is at work, are combined within a general system governed by the principle of conservation of energy (1st law of thermodynamics)--the principle that energy can be changed from one form to another (from "matter" into "energy" in layman's terms, or vice versa) but cannot be created or destroyed: i.e., the total remains unchanged.

But again, that's just my non-scientist's understanding of the concept. You may have a much deeper insight.

--------------------------

* "The rest of what I said is more important, IMO, than the entropy comment."

Okay, Luis. But I understood the rest of what you said.

I didn't (still don't) understand the "speeding up" entropy comment

jtk · September 29, 2010

Luis, I accept some of your secondary points about Sontag, and your history lesson is OK but I don't think it relates well to discussion of "interpretation". Maybe I'm missing something.

I'm suggesting we consider what she wrote without reference to history and especially to ignore the old sexist stuff (most of the reason she was attacked sprang from the jealousy of mere critics and had to do with her beauty and sexuality).

Ideas don't just die. Did hers? (probably yes, in Wasilla) What essay is of comparable impact to "Against Interpretation" and what photo essays to either of hers? What accomplished writer has had as much intellectual currency among photographers? (granted, photographers may not always be serious readers)

I think that if we suspect ideas from the past have some utility today we might want to remember hers on interpretation...and we might at least initially discount or ignore other people's interpretations because they are typically the least likely folks to see what others see. We might even want to put our own interpretations on hold...Emperor's new clothes, etc.

Fred, I think your "commit/engage" non-passivity is akin to my half-baked faux-zen idea of "passive." Applying my idea to viewing photos suggests beginning with a disciplined alertness, before jumping to conclusions. I know from experience that interpretations can create mis-apprehensions if I've not had a chance to digest my own initial and non-verbal perceptions first. Perhaps a parallel: koans have obvious answers but aren't typically the first thing that comes to mind: the first thing might be interpretation if the photographer insisted on providing it.

In Japanese traditional archery one develops form before even considering release of the arrow. In American traditional archery one attends to the smallest possible "spot" at the instant of release, confident that anything other than that surrenders to luck. If we tell ourselves to hit the spot we miss. If we have good form and attend clearly we do better.

Anders, your middle path approach makes all sorts of sense to me.

jtk · September 29, 2010

Luis, I accept some of your secondary points about Sontag, and your history lesson is OK but I don't think it relates well to discussion of "interpretation". Maybe I'm missing something.

I'm suggesting we consider what she wrote without reference to history and especially to ignore the old sexist stuff (most of the reason she was attacked sprang from the jealousy of mere critics and had to do with her beauty and sexuality).

Ideas don't just die. Did hers? (probably yes, in Wasilla) What essay is of comparable impact to "Against Interpretation" and what photo essays to either of hers? What accomplished writer has had as much intellectual currency among photographers? (granted, photographers may not always be serious readers)

I think that if we suspect ideas from the past have some utility today we might want to remember hers on interpretation...and we might at least initially discount or ignore other people's interpretations because they are typically the least likely folks to see what others see. We might even want to put our own interpretations on hold...Emperor's new clothes, etc.

Fred, I think your "commit/engage" non-passivity is akin to my half-baked faux-zen idea of "passive." Applying my idea to viewing photos suggests beginning with a disciplined alertness, before jumping to conclusions. I know from experience that interpretations can create mis-apprehensions if I've not had a chance to digest my own initial and non-verbal perceptions first. Perhaps a parallel: koans have obvious answers but aren't typically the first thing that comes to mind: the first thing might be interpretation if the photographer insisted on providing it.

In Japanese traditional archery one develops form before even considering release of the arrow. In American traditional archery one attends to the smallest possible "spot" at the instant of release, confident that anything other than that surrenders to luck. If we tell ourselves to hit the spot we miss. If we have good form and attend clearly we do better.

Anders, your middle path approach makes all sorts of sense to me.

luis_g · September 29, 2010

Ernest - "And all the various "isolated systems" in which entropy (2d law of thermodynamics) is at work, are combined within a general system governed by the principle of conservation of energy (1st law of thermodynamics)--the principle that energy can be changed from one form to another (from "matter" into "energy" in layman's terms, or vice versa) but cannot be created or destroyed: i.e., the total remains unchanged."

Yes Ernest, the quantity of energy/matter remains the same, a constant. But not the orderliness. Any process increases the entropy of the universe. The second Law of Thermodynamics is about the quality of that energy, which is always shifting and not a constant (as far as we know, of course). Entropy is about the lesser-known arrow of heat transfer. How the quality of energy goes from usable (concentrated) toward unusable (diffused) at a given temperature.

Any process, including making, hanging, viewing, critiquing and describing art, or those that locally increase order, ultimately increase entropy in its universe.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-nature-breaks-the-second-law

luis_g · September 29, 2010

John - "I'm suggesting we consider what she wrote without reference to history..."

I am explicitly considering what she wrote and repeatedly returned to her text, quoted the distinctions she makes between the two poles at the end of the operational definitions of "interpretation". I think those are extremely important, though not everything, of course. In other words, interpretation can be useful, and like all systems, when it fails to justify itself, it needs to be overthrown, or turned over into fertilizer for new, more inspiring and useful ideas. Ideas don't die, but the context in which they exist are used and understood/etc. is always shifting. The gestalt of SS's essay is fascinating. Once we start to either drown the thing in formaldehyde or cut it up, the corpus is disintegrated by our approach. I'm not arguing for balance of any kind when it comes to interpretation. I think it varies widely, and we elect or alight on our place in that continuum. In our time, critics and criticism of the kind SS was attacking are almost extinct. In other words, "interpretation" is currently significant in a personal sense far more than in a cultural one. If it's useful to you, do/use it. If not, don't.

Sometimes I find it very useful, others I bypass it without a second thought. For me, it is crucial that interpretation be, like science, an open-ended system. If you can't hold opposing thoughts in your head without having to champion one, or keep possibilities viable, interpretation can be a deadening, crystallizing thing. If you understand that it is open-ended, and subject to revision as evidence comes in, then it can be a useful living thing, an elegant system of propulsion.

JK - "I know from experience that interpretations can create mis-apprehensions if I've not had a chance to digest my own initial and non-verbal perceptions first."

Here we agree. Unless a project or idea has a strong derivative aspect, I tend to start out in a new direction "cold". Well, more like warm, by that I mean responding to intuition, feelings, emotions, or simple vectors without doing a lot of research, in a very open-ended (if not scattered) manner. I want to preserve my native fresh impulses intact. If research is to follow, it does so after an initial excursion into the work. That way I have some insight and guiding evidence into my initial notions as opposed to any exterior ideas, images concepts, etc that may (or likely will) enter later. This is more of an issue nowadays than it has ever been creatives.

[A wee connected rant follows]

It is true that one can remain like a shuttered solitary saint these days, but it's damned near impossible. The effects of having unimaginable resources at our disposal in ways scholars and artists dreamt of, but never have before, are bringing forth a wave of hyper-hybridism in many disciplines. The weight of history is not gone, but the ratio of what came before to what is happening now is shifting as never before. We're just seeing the tip of the iceberg in the arts. And it is complicated. History as resource is much more of an influence than it ever has been, and it is being transformed into unrecognizable forms, collaged and visually hypertexted in the arts (as it is in everything else). We are seeing unbelievably multifaceted works, synthesizing a large number of periods, styles, etc. coming through. A lot of these are juvenilia at present, but some are well beyond that already. Genius will still out, and certain kinds of personalities are going to fluorish in this shift, and they will be more gatherer than hunter, neither total geeks nor old-school photographers, but hybrids.

[End rant]

ernest-b · September 29, 2010

Luis, thanks--interesting article.

However: having accepted its premises, if one considers the implications of "entropy" as defined in this manner (i.e., if one considers them through the lens of "philosophy" per this forum, as they would apply to your earlier comment), one must draw a number of conclusions:

(1) Earlier states of our universe having been less "entropic" than its present state (just as its present is less entropic than its future), the least-entropic state of our universe would have been that which prevailed just prior to the big bang;

(2) Everything that has occurred since the big bang has been a continuous unfolding of entropy;

(3) The expansion and scattering of matter and energy, creating conditions conducive to the eventual appearance of life, were manifestations of entropy;

(4) The appearance of life in the universe, and the evolution of homo sapiens on earth, were manifestations of entropy;

(5) Birth, the development of human abilities, the refinement of human society, and the development of human "art" are manifestations of entropy -- every bit as much so as death, the loss of individual human abilities, the degradation of human society, and the corruption of human "art";

(7) Everything that occurs anywhere in the universe is ipso facto a manifestation of entropy (An "occurence" being a function of "passing time" and "changing condition"--and "entropy" being inherent in any passage of time and any change of condition);

(8) Every action we take, no matter what, is therefore a manifestation of entropy;

(9) To characterize any human action as "entropic" is a tautology;

(10) Doing more (of anything) will "speed up" entropy;

(11) Substituting one activity for another (e.g., acting"creatively" or "destructively", pursuing "evil" or "good" objectives) can have no effect on the pace of entropy, if the one action will induce an equal amount of change away from the status quo (whether for good or ill) as the other;

(12) The only way to "slow down" entropy would be to do less of everything, thus slowing the rate of change away from the status quo.

ernest-b · September 29, 2010

Luis, after all the parsing-out in the above post, I ended it without expressing, clearly, my concluding question:

You wrote: "Does the art end at the point of contact with the recipient/viewer/listener etc and simply speed up entropy?"

It would seem that the art's ending "at the point of contact with the recipient/viewer/listener etc", as you wrote, would instead slow down entropy--i.e., the art would cease to cause change in the universe.

Would not the alternate possibility, the one that you seem to prefer--i.e., that the art does not end at that point, that it continues to exert influence in the lives of the recipient/viewer/listener etc., thus the art continues to cause change in the universe--be "speeding up entropy" to a greater degree than if it had ended?

luis_g · September 29, 2010

Ernest ...

(1) Earlier states of our universe having been less "entropic" than its present state (just as its present is less entropic than its future), the least-entropic state of our universe would have been that which prevailed just prior to the big bang;

According to the currently accepted theoretical model, yes. But...there may have been much higher states of entropy before that, as per the branes-touching version of the Big Bang theory. In other words, the Big Bang (BB) may not have been the Genesis event, and conditions prior to that may have been very high in entropy. We don't know. If there is another BB, the future may be far less entropic than the present....but where? A new BB may just shove everything else out of its way, so far away as to be undetectable, or create a new universe.

At one time it was thought that as entropy caused the universe to wind down, that gravity would become a more proportionally significant force, and pull back everything into another Big Bang. Very neat, much like the dream of Brahma and the Lotus, but the evidence doesn't back it up.

[How do we boomerang this back to interpretation? ]

(2) Everything that has occurred since the big bang has been a continuous unfolding of entropy

I would use the word increase, but yep. And to throw another wrench in the works, we now believe that information cannot be destroyed (though creation is still thought possible). Where and how is this ever-expanding stack of bits being kept? Lots of physicists have worked very hard to deal with this issue and specially what happens around black holes. Information is assume to be preserved in the accretion disk, like a giant DVD, but how to play it? As Blavatsky and many others before her have intuited, it turns out there is an Akashic record, but how can it be accessed?

(7) Everything that occurs anywhere in the universe is a manifestation of entropy (An "occurence" being, ipso facto, a function of "passing time" and "changing condition"--and entropy being, by definition, continuous with the passage of time and change of condition).

There are theoretical variants regarding the connection between the arrow of time and entropy. They may be parallel, but not causally linked to each other. Entropy is not thought of as a dimension.

<snip>

(9) To characterize any human action as "entropic" is a tautology.

If we take your position that everything is a manifestation of entropy, then that is true, as any statement about anything in the universe would be, including this post, you and me and everyone and everything we know and don't know.

(11) Substituting one activity for another (e.g., acting"creatively" or "destructively"; "pursuing evil" or "pursuing good") can have no effect on the pace of entropy, if the one action will induce an equal amount of change away from the status quo (whether for good or ill) as the other."

Assuming the processes are equally transforming the same amount of energy from the usable to the unusable, yes. Entropy favors no morals.

(12) The only way to "slow down" entropy would be to do less of everything, thus slowing the rate of change away from the status quo.

To decrease the transfer of heat, yes.

ernest-b · September 29, 2010

[How do we boomerang this back to interpretation? ]

Luis, I'm interpreting your comment about interpretation...or doing my best, anyway. :)

Please don't overlook my concluding question at 10:46 p.m.

aplumpton · September 29, 2010

Witness John's little rant against creative thinking before the photo is made:

"Because often the idea is grander than the vision and the vision doesn't bear out the expected interpretation. The vision is often overwhelmed by such aiming toward meaning."

First,John, it may help a little if you change the last word to "creation", rather than "meaning". Meaning may, or may not, be derived from the result. At the point you are talking about (the photographer creating an image) it hasn't yet been hatched.

The statement is as ridiculous as telling a novelist, essayist or poet to not pre-consider anything at all, just let the pen flow because any idea you have is useless and the simple act of writing (like the simple act of photographing) with no thought is golden. The pen or the dancing keyboard will perceive all. And there, through some as yet undescribed magic, you will create something wonderful.

Nonsense. Need it be said twice?

And why should the interpretation be "expected". Art is an adventure, an exploration, an act that is performed with creative input but which makes no demands on the viewer for expected interpretations. The artist or excellent photographer does it because it seems to him "right". He may bring much thought to the creation table but he does not make any claims for how the result of his act wil be interpreted. That will be the viewers. He may "interpret" his subject matter and even his subject, but that is simply part of his creative process and has little to do with how the result will be interpreted by others.

On a secondary point, I am very much amused at how a scientific parameter like entropy, first established by the fine American thermodynamicist, Willard Gibbs, in creating the three laws of thermodynamics in the early 1900s, creeps into discussion and is misunderstood by our emminent resident art philosophers. It is being interpreted à la Sontag? Is such overreaching of one's capacities a new POP tradition? Lots of positive "Free Energy" being displayed, although increase of the "Enthalpy" (read "heat") is a predictable consequence.

luis_g · September 29, 2010

Ernest - "Would not the alternate possibility, the one that you seem to prefer--i.e., that the art does not end at that point, that it continues to exert influence in the lives of the recipient/viewer/listener etc., thus the art continues to cause change in the universe--be "speeding up entropy" to a greater degree than if it had ended? "

Sorry I had overlooked this. I don't prefer that possibility. If there isn't anything going beyond the immediate experience, then that ends there (no further discussion). If it does not end, then yes, the process and speeding up of entropy go on.

ernest-b · September 29, 2010

Hey c'mon, Arthur, this (our "entropic discussion") is fun, and I'm learning something...I think.

I appreciate Luis's patience.

ernest-b · September 29, 2010

Thank you, Luis.

luis_g · September 29, 2010

Arthur - "is misunderstood by our emminent resident art philosophers. It is being interpreted à la Sontag? Is such overreaching of one's capacities a new POP tradition?"

Arthur, don't belittle us, enlighten us instead.

aplumpton · September 30, 2010

Luis, OK, you've got me in a corner. Entropy is the "state of the (personal) nation" experienced the morning you get up, wander into the bathroom, discover another dozen fallen hairs in the sink, forget where you parked your eyeglasses, perceive one or two additional little protrusions on your otherwise Hollywoodian face, empty the coffee into the cup and add salt instead of sugar, discover another arthritic joint, open up the computer to check your mail but instead check the latest reponse in the P of P forum. That's a definite positive change in entropy.

As for photographs and art possessing increased entropy as time goes by, I am only aware of that occurring in Oscar Wilde's "The Picture of Dorian Grey".

However, I do come to P of P on all fours to seek near-infinite knowledge, and like Anders, I admire your patience with heathens as myself and await further enlightenment on entropy and creativity, the latter which I also consider a highly disordered process, and even in the absence of John's theories and statements.

luis_g · September 30, 2010

Arthur - had you actually read the original, all I meant (though Ernest read a lot more into it) was that if an artwork ends with the viewing or listening, it's nothing but a heat transfer.

Heathens? All fours? Hah. Do I detect a wee bit of contempt? BTW, it wasn't Anders, but Ernest that thanked me. You're still indulging in insults and sarcasm.

AJHingel · September 30, 2010

Luis wrote on

Anders, I do not disagree with you, but am talking about much shorter spans of time.

</blockquote>

Luis I agree but changes over time tend to go to the extreme if you take an example way back. I could have taken Abstract expressionism or Pop art or installations of the 80s, but the changes in question become maybe more subtile and difficult to detect. Long term changes are clearer to highlight. Of course we have all understood that we are discussing changes to appreciation / interpretations not to the physical artifact of art, although the chapel Sistine, for example, can be interpreted as both.

And to close, for me at least, the exchange on "confrontations"

Don't you love it when Fred talks boot-camp dirty?

</blockquote>

No I don't! For me it is approaching vulgarity and of no interest or help in these discussions.

Fred wrote

By the way, Anders, neither of your two "archetypes" comes close to describing the way John and I are talking about viewing photographs.

</blockquote>

Fred, with my infamous modesty, that is exactly where the quality of my description comes to the fore, although surely it can be improved. I mostly don't like the way you and John discuss either of the two mentioned approaches - or rather one of them, because I see little trace of the other (you choose!). The way you discuss photography tells me little about photography but maybe more about Fred and John. and further

Some people like pretty pictures, all in harmony. Others don't. Some people like all approaches to photographs and/or art to be considered equal. Others don't. Count me among the ones who don't.

</blockquote>

While counting, Fred, count me too. You could add that some are able to make pretty pictures all i harmony, others aren't. I'm not, and don't try. It seems to me that neither are or do you. Ratings on Pn is a good measure for Oh!- so - nice - prettiness.

and...further, and I promise to stop

I value some photographs more than others, some pieces of music more than others, and some paintings more than others, though I can appreciate all of them.

</blockquote>

Come on Fred, the subject of the thread, unless it has changed, is approaches to appreciating / Interpreting art and music not whether you "value" the photo/painting or not.

By the way concerning entropy I found it obvious that reference was made to "social entropy" as used by sociologists, and nothing else.

Back to the good things that despite repeated intermezzos are going on in this thread. Ernest and Luis are at something of interest.

albert_richardson1 · September 30, 2010

You see a photograph. Does it make sense to try to make something of it or to understand the image before you?

NO. Stop. You have decided to limit yourself to a sensory experience not unlike something that would happen naturally if you were unable to pay attention to it at all. Interpretation is not an issue.

YES. Stop. You are willing to devote a little of your time and attention to the piece. One cannot predict what you would say about it if you had the opportunity to talk about it. I am willing to assert my faith in opposition to JK that this time is not wasted, and that you will in no way take possession of the piece or claim it as your own creation. JK, how do you expect to learn from the work and experience of other photographers if you are not willing to think about the things that have done? Isn't this a little like trying to learn Spanish without ever talking to others who already know the language?

From here you may find yourself returning to the chaos everyone experiences in everyday living. You may find that you change your mind about the piece and your experience as time goes by.

AJHingel · September 30, 2010

Albert, we seem to have a some here that insist on cutting approaches of relating to the real world of images and sounds (here "art") dichotomously one fitting to the right side of the brain and another to the left side. As we all would know, we actually carry both with us. We can enhance one or the other side but both sides are interconnected. To insist on confrontations between them we end up in the "split brain" experiments of the Nobelist, Roger Sperry.

The main theme to emerge... is that there appear to be two modes of thinking, verbal and nonverbal, represented rather separately in left and right hemispheres respectively and that our education system, as well as science in general, tends to neglect the nonverbal form of intellect. What it comes down to is that modern society discriminates against the right hemisphere.

</blockquote>

To replace one approach for another would be to deny socialization and learning - or emotions. Mostly emotion losses out in modern society, but to fight that by violently arguing against the verbal, cerebral (sic!) approach would be extremist. Both are needed also when we approach art. None of them should be neglected. Sperry suggested that sometimes the two sides of our brain can disagree - resulting in something we could call personality entropy.

aplumpton · September 30, 2010

Luis,

My last post had nothing to do with insulting anyone, but you asked me to enlighten you on entropy which I thought best done by a little light humour aimed at the non-scientific borrowing of a scientific term. Exaggeration is a form of humour, but I am sorry you took it to be personal, which it certainly wasn't I can assure you.

I have erred in misinterpreting some arguments of others, mainly because I have too little time to read everything in detail (as a group we are not always very concise in our comments), but I guess that is no worse than experiencing the same misinterpretation of my own comments.

We are asked to lighten up, but when we do so, it is taken the wrong way. What do you really want?

luis_g · September 30, 2010

Arthur, I apologize for misinterpreting (there's that word) your response. As Fred pointed out yesterday with unusual zeal, and Lannie, Tim and Dick mentioned in another thread there's a lot going on in this forum.

What do I want? Obviously, some of what's here, because I keep coming back. OTOH, it's an approach-avoidance paradigm for me, because there are days when it all feels pointless, toxic, averse to all things creative, repulsive, tense in a draining, unproductive way, and negative, and on those days when I'm wondering why I ever set foot here, I spend my PN time giving advice on lenses for vacationers, etc.

What do I want more of? Vapid as it might have seemed to many, I immensely enjoyed the quality and nature of the exchange with Ernest yesterday evening. Friendly, mutually inquisitive, respectful, not dismissive, eye-to-eye, communication and understanding -centered, playful, open-minded, synergistic, and a rare pleasure, for which I am grateful to Ernest.

I know it can't and shouldn't always be that way. Everyone has their own style. Citing history again, creative types in the arts (and elsewhere) are legendary for hissy fits, spats, vendettas, fights, verbal and physical, and other unsacory behaviors, and I accept that, and don't always shy away from a good bout of some of the above. Vulgarity also happens. Some of these behaviors can be chalked off to neoteny and/or (ahem) bad manners.

Since John apologized, which after all this time was an unexpected and welcome surprise, I've been trying to re-enter the orbit of discourse with him, something I haven't done for some time. It's funny, because although I disagree with most of the constellation of John's concerns, we connect deeply on a few, even if from different angles. Particularly some of the aspects of what he refers to as the "verbal", and I would choose to address as the "internal dialogue". I am trying to carefully and respectfully break through ingrained bad habits and hostile biases regarding John in the spirit of acceptance and renewal.

One last thing: Arthur, those hairs in the sink gave up potential to kinetic energy as they fell, didn't they? :-)

Julie H · September 30, 2010

Luis said: "Some of these behaviors can be chalked off to neoteny and/or (ahem) bad manners."

Or entropy? [The current favored definition of entropy is "a measure of the information we lack about the microscopic details of a system." >> updated from "the measure of the unavailability of energy to do useful work" ... with which lack of good-work-doing I am very familiar ... right now, for example ...]

aplumpton · September 30, 2010

Luis,

Thanks for your forthrightness and your very perceptive analysis of the ups and downs of communication on the P of P forum, which no doubt many of us feel as well. It does get very hectic and it is very easy to get lost (which I am often victim to) and to also feel frustrated when we believe that our own viewpoints are not received as we might wish, or when we react to something (which I am often want to do) rather too quickly, which sometimes manifests itself in less than sympathetic responses. I have often more need to apologize than most. It is humbling to recognize those instances and at the same time to also reflect on the fact that this forum has provided me and probably others with a great deal of insight on art and photography, as seen through the eyes of many who are in a more knowledgeable situation than myself.

It is great when the level of exchange reaches that of the recent discussions between yourself and Ernest. I admit I lost the current thread(s) of the OP a while back, but look forward to re-reading your exchange and those other discussions of our peers in this interesting OP of John.

The challenge of dealing with ideas that are often difficult to come to terms with can lead to intense debate, confrontation and confusion. Phenomenon like that, and of hairs falling, can provide kinetic energy, but at least the discussion is dynamic and not just in a state of an unvarying value of potential energy. When it is time for a break, it is a soothing experience, as you mention, to take a diversion from PofP into a technical PNet forum, where we can help another photographer with a practical question, or get a solution to one of our own. But discussing ideas is not very far from the spirit of man.

ernest-b · September 30, 2010

Luis, I enjoyed our conversation yesterday every bit as much as you did. Thank you.

AJHingel · September 30, 2010

Luis and Ernest you are not the only that appreciated your discussion yesterday. Sometimes discussion are indeed of high quality.

If the time is for introspection, surely I'm among those that get intermingled in not so nice exchanges. I understand that some of you loves such aggressiveness and confrontations and sees it as a way of getting people out of the box. I don't agree. I believe it must be possible to engage in civilized ways of writing even about subject matters that are near our guts or hearts. Photography is problably for all of us such a subject matters.

If I sometimes, or even often, come with approaches and viewpoints that are way over the top for some, it is because I feel the present discussions are extremely limited in scope and very exclusive. It is for all to see that most threads in this forum is filled up by a handful of very active writers - sometimes down to three or four. I see this as a weakness and not a strenght and a great pity not to say that it is a misuse of this great forum. One of the reasons why so few participate is, as far as I see it, a very selective approach to treating any subject matter and an immediate aggressive rejection from some few of any deviant behaviour. I have several times argued against what I see as a very introspective, intimate, and even narcissistic approach that is presented as the one and only way of discussing photography - or at least the most valid one. The discussion we have tried to have above is an example. My fault is of course that I have failed to present alternatives in a convincing way for those concerned and too often given up trying to explain myself.

Can I just add another aspect that should never be an excuse but just a fact. We are some that use the English language as our second or third language of communication. For me it is my second foreign language, French being my first and Danish my mother tongue. Words have different connotations for foreign speakers and I'm sure even among English/American speakers. This fact has to be taken into account when we communicate, but sometimes forgotten in the heat of exchanges. It puts a heavy responsibility on not just the writers but also the readers.

Sign In

another angle on "interpretation"

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in