Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Of Static Things  (Read 22075 times)
EduPerez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 695


WWW
« Reply #40 on: October 13, 2009, 01:02:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ckimmerle
I think you took Rob's reference to God a bit too harshly. In his absence, I can only guess, but am assuming it had less to do with religious ideology than with his assertion that many of the things we photograph (be they created by God or by Nature or by Little Green Men) exist outside of our creative influence (thus his assertion regarding photography). He just happens to believe in the first.

At first, while I was reading his post, I had exactly the same thought: "well, I do not share his idea of God, but name it Nature and the argument makes perfect sense". But later, I realized that such 'other spectator' was fundamental in the argument: even if we are not watching a landscape, the fact that God watches it makes the landscape exist; when you take God out of the equation, as soon as we do not watch the landscape ceases to exist, because nobody else is watching it.

The images we see exist only when light hits our retina; so, we create the image as we watch the landscape.
Logged

Joe Behar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 305


« Reply #41 on: October 13, 2009, 05:05:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: EduPerez
when you take God out of the equation, as soon as we do not watch the landscape ceases to exist, because nobody else is watching it.

Therefore, If something either cannot be observed or is not being observed, it does not exist.

Just playing Devil's advocate on this Eduperez....If you've done any reading and thinking on Modality, Epistemology and Schroedinger's cat and its philosophical possibilities, you'll know its not nearly as simple as you say  



Logged
EduPerez
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 695


WWW
« Reply #42 on: October 14, 2009, 01:35:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Joe Behar
Therefore, If something either cannot be observed or is not being observed, it does not exist.

The clouds and the rocks exist, of course.
But the landscape, as an image, it does not exist: there are millions of photons bouncing all around, but nothing more.
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #43 on: October 14, 2009, 05:21:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Taking a preprandial break, so back on the internet again long enough to post. I did try some day or so ago and found I couldn't raise the show because of another glitch which seems to have deleted a post I think that I sent to Chuck regarding the suspicion of a light sarcasm in one of his replies. Anyway, to repeat myself if I did or to say so if I have not already, I reread the post and concluded that there was no sarcasm at all, that what I think I was reading was probably my own bewilderment at my apparent inability to articulate what struck me as a simple thought: the differences between photographic art, creation and reportage and the rarity of the creative element in much of it.

References to God were made in exactly the manner as has been suggested, where the substitution by Little Green Men would have been as suitable in the context of the post. For the record, I do have a belief in a God but not in any religion. I see no paradox. The problem, for me, is that however clever we become in maths, the other sciences, we are ever that series of steps behind, which sort of begs certain questions, does it not? Even the Big Bang doesn't seem to answer the basic problem of whence the materials and motivational forces to cause it to Big Bang in the first place. All I know for sure is that you couldn't pay me enough to temp me onto a space shuttle - having spent early years in both the engineering and then photo departments of an aero-engine factory I view flying with extreme distaste - in a personal sense. I once touched on this topic with a pilot (military) and he shared the dislike of civilian air travel, thinking the thing was never going to leave the ground, but carry straight on. I wonder is Russ shares any of that.

Anyway, thanks for the many replies to the topic!

Rob C

Logged

schrodingerscat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 370


« Reply #44 on: November 18, 2009, 11:24:07 PM »
ReplyReply

"I seem to be a verb" -  Bucky Fuller and R A Wilson.

I think that the reason I latched onto photography was an attempt to pickle a very brief instance in time/space in order to remember a much broader segment  of the continuing running dialog that is the universe. And to impose my vision at that point.

Or it could just as well be a nervous tick.

In any case, nothing hanging on the walls matches the furniture.
Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #45 on: November 19, 2009, 04:06:29 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: schrodingerscat
In any case, nothing hanging on the walls matches the furniture.





Don't give up! With time, anything is possible.

;-)

Rob C
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 [3]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad