lightwait

<p>Connecting the dots of truth about color.<br /><br />What's really going on with color and similar modality-mixed meta-wonderings?<br /><br />At the phenomenal level, the level of human experience, we experience color as inhering in the colored things we see. Thus, most of our language about color has to do with this phenomenal, real world, as experienced. This is the natural world of green grass, red crayons, and blue skys. We can and do say true things about color relative to this phenomenal understanding, relative to this experienced reality. <br /><br />For instance it is true to say that a boat you see in the harbor that's been painted blue, is blue. This means the boat was coated with a subtance known as paint or stain which is some shade of blue. If the grass is green, there is greeness in the grass.<br /><br />But a scientific understanding of color is another matter, and has to do with understanding what goes on at the neural level, a level we don't actually experience consciously.<br /><br />As Lakoff and Johnson put it (Philosophy in the Flesh), "At the neural level, green is a multiplace interactional property, while at the phenomenal level, green is a one-place predicate chracterizing a property that inheres in an object." So, they go on to argue, "a scientific truth claim based on knowledge about the neural level is contradicting a truth claim at the phenomenological level." That is, color understood as an interactional property of light, local color, color cones, neurons, is contradicting the phenomenal truth of colored objects.<br /><br />They go onto show how this stems from the philosophical theory of truth as correspondence which does not distinguish such levels. It assumes that all truth can be stated at once from a neutral perspective.<br /><br />But there are distinct truths at different levels, and there is no perspective that is neutral between them. Grass is green, as we all know, and the crayon is red (and if it's not red when the bowl is removed, then someone has actively tried to mislead us).<br /><br />The dilema present in this and similar (tiresomely shallow frollicings) is one between two genuinely disinct levels of understanding, or, levels of truth. <br />But we now know that truth is modal, and this is reflected in our language. Truth is thus, always relative to one's understanding which is relative to what one is doing.<br /><br />Some see this as a priority problem -- which version of truth is more true, but that's the wrong approach, neither is more true. In fact (and, for instance) it's mostly irrelevant to speak of our experience of color in scientific terms, because we simply do not experience that. To do so would be artificially ... untrue.<br /><br />So, the question, what color is the red crayon when placed under the bowl, is a phenomenal level question. Its answer is red. The answer we all know.<br /><br />As soon as you begin speaking of color in non-phenomenal terms, you've switched modes, and any subsequent question should reflect that modal shift. Unless you wish to chase your tail all day.<br>

And if you can't express your question in the mode you wish an answer, then shut up already. :-)</p>

 

<p>God.<br>

I often feel like god in relation to the stuff of my images. At other times I feel like a little atom.</p>

<p>Naturally, I think the guest/host metaphor is pure BS. No. It's worse than that. It's a balloon full of a foul gas, covered in so much bullshit you can't even make out the underlying balloon structure.</p>

<p>I can't believe the number of you that responded hook line and sinker. Way to go, Julie.</p>

<p>No, there can't.<br>

This is a categorical error.<br>

Honesty applied to images is projecting human motives onto something that has no agency.<br>

But let's not pretend. We do say a picture may deceive a viewer, but a reordering of the words conveys sense better: A viewer may be deceived by an image. This way, the actual conceptual work gets done by the corresponding concepts: Person deceived, image viewed.<br>

But really, there is nothing wrong with talking about images deceiving. This is how we use language -- metaphorically.<br>

But to actually take the further step and to speak of honesty as something inherent in an image, is to subtly shift into a different language gear. When you ask the question, it's as if you are shifting into a more technical level, a more serious level. You are attempting to say something more general or more regular about images. But if you don't take note of the metaphoric projections prior to the down shift, they're likely to follow you there. :-)</p>

<p>"I think it is very rare to come across such people."</p>

<p>Doesn't the transceiver have to fit the transducer or something?<br>

Without the right coupling, so to speak, you're going to have to wait around a while before you can piggyback everyone's consensus and thus, recognize genius once more.</p>

<p>"I can't help you with the "objective" sense of the word as I don't think it exists (nor do I think anything "objective" exists)."<br>

Thanks for the response.<br>

Why don't you think "objective" exists? What about 'objective?' Or, what about the concept objective? Don't all three exist as each one is sustained in your mind? Isn't that how concepts generally exist, John? Even if only a myth, it still exists as a myth, and as such, has a particular power to inform human experience...wait for it...siginificantly. By the way, it's mythical status is what I meant to convey with the scare quotes.<br>

At any rate, understood as a myth, with a particular range or power to "make sense" of a particular range of human experience, we needn't get bogged down with theoretical arguments concerning the ontological status of concepts...not unless you force the issue. <br>

So then, a more objective sense of significance, at this point, would consist anything remotely resembling a reason for holding the notions you do.<br>

Are you simply a significance meter? Or are you saying that when we appreciate a photograph, if in doubt as to its significance, we can consult a table comprising the official list of significance?<br>

I am asking you about your knowledge and why you feel it really is something you know as opposed to something you believe or advocate.</p>

 

<p>John: "Seems to me that "aesthetics" most commonly has to do with "looking pretty," has little relation to <strong>"significance." "</strong><br>

This sort of thing bothers me more than the 'no body cares' ones.<br>

You appear to be saying something but all your key terms are "special."<br>

And you know, you often bandy around the term significance, but I'll be damned if I've ever seen you justify "significance" in any "objective" sense. At least nothing that would warrant your apparent command of the concept. </p>

<p>To believe some of you, the statement 'nobody cares' is impossible to make truthfully, as if the utterance was enough to disprove the claim.<br>

And that just makes me suspect of your understanding of language, at least partially.<br>

Nobody cares, is just a common device to bring the larger world into the picture. Think of it like an 'establishing shot' of sorts.<br>

But yeah, as an intellectual, I hate it when people say shit like that. It's like a tourist telling me where to focus my lens. But then again, you have to wonder why they make the effort to say it.<br>

Don't you?</p>

<p>Ian, you'd be way ahead to merely indicate you grasp "Lost America"'s point.</p>

 

<p>Steve,<br>

Your intentions were obvious. And your thesis is hardly controversial.<br>

Put a hammer in the hand of even a monkey and you're likely to find a trail of smashed things leading from the place where the tool was discovered where the monkey is now.<br>

What's funny is the way some of these folks respond to your post as if they actually knew what you said.</p>

<p><strong>Dan </strong>- "Is it really that simple? Are all photographers clones of each other?</p>

<p>That's just a silly interpretation. There is nothing in Steve's prose to suggest we are clones.</p>

<p>You really are trying too hard.</p>

<p>Look, here's another example:<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Dan </strong>- "I know a guy who spends most of his free time photographing music performances in clubs. I don't even see that in your list."</p>

<p>Allow me to help (the bolding is mine...for you):<br>

<strong> </strong><br>

<strong>Steve </strong>- "photographs of things around the house, <strong>textures</strong>, <strong>abstracts</strong>, <strong>shadows</strong>, <strong>friends in everyday poses</strong>, nudes, close ups of flowers and plants, landscapes of scenes around my neighborhood, <strong>people in the street, and so on.</strong>"</p>

<p><strong>Arthur P </strong>- "As Luis says, there is more to an accomplished photographer being the first to do something than the fact of just being first. How he did it and why he did it are important."<br>

So then, just how relevant is being first?</p>

<p><strong>Luis G </strong>- "No, it's not simply about being first. That's a basic misunderstanding."<br>

So you're suggesting ... what, that the greats still had to know someone?</p>

<p>Gerry, there is no fallacy in calling an idiot an idiot, idiot.</p>

<p>You see, the ad hominem is a fallacy of irrelevance -- to say that some aspect of "the person" invalidates what the person contends, is irrelevant.</p>

<p>When you are talking about one of W's ideas (Wittgenstein, you dummy), then talk about it. Use your understanding to convey it to others so they can better appreciate your point relative to W's, relative to photography.</p>

<p>Why is there so little of this here? Are there none of you good at explaining your understanding of a concept or of a thinker's style of thought?</p>

<p>There simply isn't much of anything philosophical about name dropping or idea dropping.</p>

<p>The forum would be better if there were more conceptual analysis. This would in turn help those less familiar with the philosophical attitude because concepts are something we all use, all the time. Disagreements are often about how a concept is being used.</p>

<p>I hope this doesn't seem mean, but some of you need a hair cut. It's like when you return to a class reunion 20 years on and people have changed...except for their hair.</p>

<p>I really dislike these kinds of general indictments, I much prefer to tell so and so he's being a dick. So, if you'd like to email me, I'd be happy to set you straight on just what your problem is -- as I see it (of course).</p>

<p>It's not that we remember them differently, some stuff just won't let us forget it.</p>

<p>Maybe size matters too.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>They want your submissions to be cool and relevant.</p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>That question about seeing parts was not mine. I posted it before realizing it was missing quotation.<br>

What follows it is my response to it.<br>

Sorry for the mixup, the quote belongs to Julie Heyward.</p>

<p><br />Why do people so commonly resist seeing a photograph <em>as a whole</em> rather than as some sort of collection of canned objects?</p>

<p>Don't look now, but a collection is some kind of whole.</p>

<p>Personally I don't have an awareness of any of my photos on a pixel level. At the level of pixels, images are meaningless as wholes.</p>

<p>What are you really trying to say?</p>

<p>"If not, then what would you name it, and why?"</p>

<p>How is this much different than "what's your favorite color?"</p>

<p>One of the things that kind of unnerved or bothered me was the sense of recognition that the photographer had put her finger directly on something.</p>

<p>What is it we're seeing in these faces?<br>

Is it merely a few relationships outside the norm? Cheek bones set too far apart? Mouths open? Mouths not as wide as the should be in relation to the eye set?<br>

Why should these "off" relationships disturb us?<br>

Regarding technique, why not throw in a dash of chiaroscuro here and there? Or, perhaps a little flash fill off the golden sand? How about a touch of sweat mist on those cheekers? Wouldn't these sorts of things (generally) invite a trivial, 'uglies can be pretty too' reading?<br>

What are we doing when we "flatter" a subject with our adjustments and choices? Aren't we saying, ironically, Lie for the camera?<br>

What does 'best light' really mean in this context?<br>

I'm not sure what the photographer is trying to say, but I'd like to think she is asking us to ask about ourselves -- causing, persuading, tricking us into reflecting on what our visual processing really consists of.</p>

<p>B M Mills: "This general disposition causes me to struggle with myself at times (ie whether to impose my own view and preference, how important it is to do so in a given situation, what other factors are at play) and perhaps indeed some of the intensity in my writing above reflected more an internal discomfort at these issues and an argument within myself than anything else."<br /><br>

Well, these are all good points, but as philosophers, if we are serious about it, we each seek a universality to our views. <br /><br>

So, although it is true that our views are perspectival (partial and limited) it does not follow that they are "subjective" in the strict sense -- a subjective view is a result of something peculiar to that subject, like cataracs changing someones vision or a brain disorder being at the root of odd behavior. Personal tastes would seem to fall within this category as well. But views that have been informed by the articulations of others or, have routinely been subject to the perview of others, tend to fall outside it.<br /><br>

No?</p>

<p>I like doing it.</p>

<p>"The soul is 'transport mechanism' that people use for the tranisition between life and death - how can we take that from them."<br /> <br /> (I wonder; are these "them" the same unspeakable them who are using film more and more these days?) [parenthetical reference to another POP thread]</p>

<p>"Is art being overwhelmed by technology?"</p>

<p>Maybe you should ask art. I know technology well and I am sure he meant no harm whatsoever. In fact, I'm positive he was only trying to help.</p>