johankimigo

David, while we’re in basic agreement and I think there’s merit in what you say, it may be important to consider where some exceptions take us. Art often is NOT just a “one-man show.” These “disconnects” can sometimes be as important a part of the process as is sole authorship by a single artist. A playwright, for example, like a musical composer, often relies on others for control of the presentation.

 

Mozart likely never dreamed (though he of all people may have!) of the way a contemporary orchestra would sound. He very likely tailored his composing to the very sounds produced by instruments of his day. Nevertheless, most of us know Mozart via the sound of today’s instruments. While some listeners swear that the only “true” way to listen to Mozart is on original instruments, I’d maintain that our connection to Mozart is as strong when we listen on today’s instruments, due to a variety of factors, especially that our ears are more accustomed to today’s instruments so his music sounds more familiar and less eccentric on instruments we're more accustomed to hearing. I’d be surprised if Mozart wouldn’t be thrilled by how his music sounds several centuries after he wrote it for what was then a very different medium. And he might very well feel more connected to it because of its ability to traverse mediums rather than less connected to it for that reason.

 

There are great photos being restored, sometimes more in keeping with today’s norms rather than with an eye toward exactly what the medium would have been like decades ago. Some are being scanned for renewed viewings by a generation that is more comfortable with screen than print viewing, and I don’t see it as a disconnect, but rather a very rich tapestry of interconnections, in the viewing of art.

 

Maybe the moral of the story can be summed up by listening to Whitney Houston’s cover of Dolly Parton’s I Will Always Love You. It’s a case where the original artist didn’t have full control of presentation and yet much of the world would probably agree that Houston brought things to that song that Parton’s performance and interpretation never did. Is Houston’s cover a disconnect? I’d say, no. I’d say it’s just the kind of artistic shared energy that can be vital to many great works of art, one artist building on another’s work. I’m thinking art is more like connection in various links that create a great chain than it is like the chain itself which divides one thing from another.

https://ovo.fyi/chaturbate/ https://ovo.fyi/xnxx/ https://ovo.fyi/tubegalore/

Interestingly, this example also makes David’s point about how the presentation and medium can’t be separated from the art. The medium through which we hear the song, voice and interpretation, physical sound and emotional context, is as much the song as what the composer wrote down on the page or devised with her own voice and musical gifts.

Can't recall when / where - saw something similar on handmade paper with untrimmed edges. Etchings or woodcut, can't recall which, but powerful. There are special clips and hangers, or homemade with relative ease. An excellent idea IMO.

"How you gonna name yourself after a damn gun and have a man-bun?"

 

 

https://ovo.fyi/chaturbate/ https://ovo.fyi/xnxx/ https://ovo.fyi/tubegalore/

My father died when I was 15, and my ten year old brother died two months later of cancer. We had 8 mm movies of my brother, but since my father took them, he wasn't in any. After my dad died, we had other things to spend money on rather than keeping the projector running with its expensive bulbs.

In her memoir, Sally Mann writes about her memory of the artist Cy Twombly, and how vivid and detailed her memories are, despite not photographing him often. She says "I am convinced that the reason I can remember him so clearly and in such detail is because I have so few pictures of him." She contrasts this with her memories of her father: "Because of the many pictures I have of my father, he eludes me completely. In my outrageously disloyal memory he does not exist in three dimensions, or with associated smells or timbre of voice. He exists as a series of pictures....I don't have a memory of the man; I have a memory of a photograph." In this video she talks about the same thing:

 

The way photographing can affect memory has been studied recently, and the phenomenon of not remembering well what was photographed has been given the name photo-taking-impairment effect.

 

Forget in a Flash: A Further Investigation of the Photo-Taking-Impairment Effect - ScienceDirect

 

The authors of that article believe there is such a phenomenon, and they speculate on the causes of it. It makes me wonder if prior to the popularity of photography if people's memories were somehow better. Could it be that if we want to remember something - a scene or a person - we'd be better off putting down the camera and concentrating more on what our senses are telling us? (I've read that Laura Ingalls Wilder was able to remember scenes from her childhood so well in part because she often verbally described them to her blind sister Mary. That would take a measure of observation and study that may not have occurred if she had been making photographs instead.)

 

I'm curious about your personal experience with this. When you remember places and people and events, are your memories more vivid for those times when you did not photograph them? Do you feel like you remember photographs rather than actual events? Do you suspect that you "offload" your memories to the prosthetic memory of a camera?

My father died when I was 15, and my ten year old brother died two months later of cancer. We had 8 mm movies of my brother, but since my father took them, he wasn't in any. After my dad died, we had other things to spend money on rather than keeping the projector running with its expensive bulbs.