absent

<blockquote>

<p>Let me invoke for background, the concept of human rights. That specifically, some rights are inalienable. One of those is the right of speech. The essence of the right to speech is the <em>right of self expression</em>. Think carefully for a moment about all which that right entails. All the kinds of expression. The position I described as the artist's right to declare his work art, is a natural part of his right to self expression.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh, we're gonna have fun with this one (opening my second bottle of beer)...</p>

<p>The usual formulation of "inalienable rights" comes from the US Declaration of Independence: ...among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...Sorry, but "right of speech" or "free speech" is not mentioned there. Incidentally, these "inalienable rights" are declared to be "endowed by their Creator" so here comes that pesky religious angle again.</p>

<p>The usual formulation of "free speech" comes from the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which reads:<br>

　</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.<br /><br /></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>This is merely a limitation on the power of the Federal Congress. It makes no claim of an "inalieable right" to speak, or speak freely, and leaves other levels of Government theoretically free to impose limitations.</p>

<p>Being an engineer and not an international legal scholar, I'm not sure what other countries legal frameworks have to say about freedom of speech. I am sure that throughout history "speech" and "free speech" have certainly not been considered universal, inalieable or protected human rights in practice. Even today "free speech" means something quite different to a North Korean than it does to a Western European or American.</p>

<p>Further, any Constitution, including the US one, is merely a compact between a people and its Government. The "Rights" guaranteed are requested (or demanded) by the people and granted (or respected) by the Sovereign authority (or elected government). It's a contract - and contracts are made to be broken. The "rights" last just as far and as long as they can be protected, either by legal force (the Court system), military force, or the people themselves (revolutionary force).</p>

<p>So in fact, an artist, (like anyone else) has only the rights he can defend. He may feel an <em>irresistible urge</em> for self-expression, but that is not a "right". Nor does he have "right" to "declare" anything, nor are his declarations binding on anyone else.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> Dead people, missing people, people who are not present in a scene, can't be an active part of any conflict. Thomas Jefferson may have had free speech rights, but it is a moot point today if I call him a liar, right?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, you would have the same burden of proof as if you called a living person a "liar". Of course Jefferson (or Beethoven, or Picasso) can't "lie" now that he's dead, so you would have to prove that he lied about something while he was alive. If you could not prove your statement you would lose credibility. The reflection would be on you, not on Jefferson.</p>

<p>It is a moot point in that Jefferson couldn't sue you - but I wonder if his survivors could, for libel or defamation of character?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"A painful truth of today is that even as we import technologies and lifestyles, there is no way to import spiritual awakening, justice, or strength. There is no way to import the soul."<br>

Whether or not you agree with Ai Wei Wei's quoted outlook on "humans," do you see how he is using the word "soul" in the context of his art?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, I really have no idea. He lost me long before I reached that paragraph.<br>

Whether the "soul" is a separable spiritual entity or biologically derived "self-awareness" it is something that comes from within, so of course it can't be "imported". What that implies for Modernism or any other art movement is obscure to me.<br>

　</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Soul, as I used it means individual "consciousness" or personal awareness and subjectivity.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>M: That seems inconsistent with your previous statement, which was:</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am only referring to the individual human soul connecting to the nature of the universe.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For "connection" there must be two parties involved, a transmitter and receiver so to speak. Otherwise the line is dead; you don't even get a busy signal. So for your self-awareness to "connect" with the Universe, the Universe must likewise be self-aware; and dead things have no self-awareness. Therefore, you evidently believe the Universe is alive.</p>

<p>Relevance to art: If artists believe that art involves "getting in touch with the Universe" does that mean they must be, in some sense, religious? Is this theory of art in itself a religion? Of course if art is merely a form of communication among humans, and not a spiritual experience or exchange, no such assumption is required.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I am only referring to the individual human soul connecting to the nature of the universe.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, but without some religious assumptions, where does the "soul" come from? It cannot be proven objectively to exist, so its existence must be taken on faith - and faith is the essence of religion.</p>

<p>Again, this is a digression better pursued in private.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't think it has to be a matter of "pleasing" an audience. Sometimes, we can consider an audience without cow-towing to them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But some audiences cannot be pleased unless we kowtow. For instance, my art teacher (and audience) could have said:</p>

<p>"You have made a good start, but your ghost would be more convincing with a sheet", or<br>

"More people would recognize the ghost if it had a sheet" or even<br>

"I would like your ghost better with a sheet".</p>

<p>But, no! (says John Belushi...)...GHOSTS....HAVE....SHEETS! It cannot be a ghost without a sheet! It cannot be ART without a sheet! I am in control, and you MUST conform to my expectations!</p>

<p>And I have much the same reaction to saying jazz singers MUST be photographed in black and white. I can accept that this may be a photographic convention; that maybe they are more effectively photographed in black and white, or that someone (and maybe someone more knowledgable and experienced than I) likes them better in black and white. But to state that they HAVE to be, and that they HAVE to have hats, sunglasses and three-day stubble? Sorry, this is not reasoning; it is arrogance.</p>

<p>If I worked for QG's gallery (if he has one), and my daily bread depended on conformance to his standards, I would dutifully churn out the clicheed style he requires. However, my heart would not be in the work, and I probably wouldn't be very good at it.</p>

<p>M, the statement I took issue with was:<br>

　</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Religion depends on authority whereas spirit depends on self.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This appears to set up a dichotomy between religion and spirituality, between God and "spirit". It overlooks the fact that in the monotheistic understanding God IS Spirit. He is not some mean old man hiding in the clouds throwing lightning bolts; he is the life force that pervades the entire Universe, and created the Universe. I suppose one could have spiritual experiences without God (if one believes in other spirits) but one cannot conceive of God with no spirit. Likewise in polytheistic traditions the gods are understood to be spirits, beings not of the physical world.</p>

<p>I do think this has digressed far enough from the subject of the thread that if you are genuinely interested in my views on this sidebar (which I respectfully doubt) we should continue this exchange in private.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Photos of jazz combo's playing in small, dark bars <strong>have</strong> to be, it turns out, in B&W. It goes with the context as much as the hats, sunglasses and three-day stubble.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>　<br />This (and the resulting exchange) reminds me of a story from my middle school art class long, long ago.</p>

<p>We were assigned to make "string pictures" (using a piece of string as a subject) with a Halloween theme. I thought for a few minutes and decided to do a ghost climbing out of an opened coffin. I sketched the coffin and background, bent my string into a sort of stick figure skeleton and showed the result to the teacher. The reaction was, "I like the idea, but ghosts have sheets".</p>

<p>This surprised me, because I had seen TV and movie actors playing the role of ghosts, and none of them wore sheets. I had also seen books on "paranormal photography", and none of the fake "ghosts" wore sheets either.</p>

<p>Thinking I could have posed the skeleton better, I re-bent it, reattached it and again submitted the work. The response was even more emphatic: "No, Jim -- GHOSTS....HAVE....SHEETS!"</p>

<p>At that point I gave up. It was clear his mind was made up, and it had become a control issue. I re-bent the string into the rough outline of a hooded figure with spread wings, and stuck it over the coffin. The teacher smiled and gave me an A.</p>

<p>I threw the picture away. It wasn't my work; it was HIS.</p>

<p>Moral: If an artist works for an audience, or to please the critics, he has to give them what they want. This involves compromise, and maybe outright suppression of the artist's own vision. On the other hand, if he works only to please himself, his work may be misunderstood or rejected outright. This is the artist's dilemma.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your paragraph represents an almost perfect view of cosmology as created by Western Religion. It features a Master of the Universe deity, good and evil, and an inside and outside world of dimensions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, the three great montheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) share a common Middle Eastern origin. Truly Western religions (ancient Greek, Roman, and pre-Christian European such as Druidism and Wicca) were very much polytheistic.<br>

　</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Religion depends on authority whereas spirit depends on self.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think many religious people, from many different traditions, would disagree with this as well.<br>

　<br>

No one here is asking you to accept "Religion" or a particular faith, M; but that is not license to misrepresent them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Good critiques are generated by caring and understanding, empathy and a desire to be constructive. Often felllow artists can be each others' harshest -- and best -- critics.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't think Briot would disagree with this position. Neither, for that matter, would I.</p>

<p>　</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One doesn't dismiss what others say simply because they're not facts.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What about someone (not you, Fred) who writes off an entire genre (fine arts) as "not art" because he believes it is "not relevant" (whatever that means)?</p>

<p>Why not judge him as he has judged you (assuming you work in "fine art")?</p>

<p>How can he possibly have anything caring, understanding, empathetic, constructive or even useful to say about your work?</p>

<p>From Briot's essay "The Many Faces of Criticism":<br>

　</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Some people critical of artwork are disappointed with what life offered them and skeptical about other people’s endeavors. Skepticism and cynicism have nothing to do with us or our work. It has everything to do with the person who is commenting on our work. In fact, they are not really commenting on our work. They are commenting on themselves and of their view of the world.</p>

<p>Skeptics and cynics often come with personal convictions about what you do even though you have never met them and they have not seen your work before....no amount of explanation will change their mind. Their mind is made up and they do not want to be bothered by the facts. At first I took these remarks personally, but I soon learned to not pay attention to them. These are opinions, not facts. Most importantly, these remarks are not generated by what I do. They are generated by skepticim (sic) and cynicism.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Alain Briot has an interesting series of articles on the Luminous Landscape website. According to his online biography, he studied painting and drawing at the Academie des Beaux Arts as well as studying photography. He draws distinctions between being an artist, being an artist in business (art marketing) and being an art critic.</p>

<p>Based on Briot's definitions, I would say that in this discussion m stephens has taken the viewpoint of an artist, and Q. G. de Bakker that of an art critic.</p>

<p>A little fall color in my front yard. Of course, when I'm done admiring the leaves I have to pick them all up...</p><div></div>

<p>I removed the lens and found a tiny hair on the edge of the rear element, protruding a short distance over the glass. I cleaned both front and rear elements, then took a few more shots. Including a couple with nice sunstars and no ghosts. </p>

<p>Did I find the culprit? I could see a little bit of flare in the viewfinder with the sun in just the right position, but it didn't show up in any images. It was diffused at 18mm, focussed to a sharp point at about 20mm and was gone by 24mm. </p>

<p>Here's a 100% crop of the artifact:</p><div></div>

<p>Was playing around this morning shooting the local landscape as the sky was clearing. Got a "nice" ghost in a couple of images at widest zoom with the sun near the corner of the frame:</p><div></div>

<p>A bud snipped from one of our rosebushes. Wonder if it will open in the vase?</p><div></div>

<p>Looking down my driveway as the fall color comes in...</p><div></div>

<p>I've just confirmed that cycling Live View after changing the aperture in A mode on my D5100 does indeed allow DoF preview. I expect the D3200 is similar. Thanks Andrew for posting the dpreview review; this trick will come in handy.</p>

<p>So, to ask a different but related question...</p>

<p>What could the OP do with his existing system to get better portrait bokeh?</p>

<p>Increase subject to background separation?</p>

<p>Use the 105 lens instead of the 50 (space permitting)?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Whilst in LV, I changed the aperture up to f2.8 and down to f22 and think I know the answer. Screen doesn't seem to change.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>With the D5100 the screen changes <em>after</em> clicking the shutter. That is, the lens seems to remain at the last aperture used for exposure. There is no direct control of aperture and no DoF preview. Of course, the D3200 may be different.</p>

<p>I've used this a focussing aid for macro shots. Take a picture at max aperture to force the lens wide open. Then, compose and focus manually, but select the aperture needed for exposure. The extremely narrow DoF wide open helps to get the focus point where you want it. I have only tried this with the 40mm Micro-Nikkor, which doesn't seem to have a focus shift issue.</p>

<p>If the SB700 is too expensive, what about a used SB600? You can find them for about $200 on auction sites.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If the OP wants to go for the 40mm, then in my opinion is better to get in this case, the 35 mm f/1.8 which it is much faster lens and still can be used for close-up pics.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The faster speed is probably irrelevant since the depth of field at f2.0 and f1.8 is paper thin. It would only be usable for flat subjects, and the 35mm is optically worst at these apertures. For closeups you generally want a smallish aperture (no more than f8) at which both lenses are sharp. The 40mm can focus much closer - so it takes the advantage IMO. I agree that it would not be the best choice for (live) insects.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is not sense at all to use this lens (40mm Micro-Nikkor) for macro unless .. you only shoot flowers. In that case the 35 mm f/1.8 makes more sense and can get as close as the 40 mm but better optics.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hardly. The 40mm Micro-Nikkor goes all the way to 1:1. The 35mm's maximum reproduction ration is 1:6.1 - the 18-55mm kit lens actually focuses closer.</p>

<p>"Better optics" covers a lot of territory, but the 40mm is distortion-free and has a reputation as one of Nikon's sharpest lenses.</p>

<p>True that the 40mm has a very short working distance at 1:1, but you don't have to be that close for every shot.</p>

<p>I think someone else mentioned it, but OVF cameras (not just SLRs) have an advantage in that you can frame the shot without running the battery down.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Actually if you look at the high res version of the not too shabby blonde photographed in the review you will see its mush.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>? Didn't look like mush to me, I bet it would make a nice 8 x 10.</p>

<p>Plus, you can get "mush" out of any camera if you use it wrong...</p>