View Poll Results: How accurately does this quote describe you?
- 92. You may not vote on this poll
Not very accurately
Me too... It's great seeing what things look like in b+W.
"He took to writing poetry and visiting the elves: and though many shook their heads and touched their foreheads and said 'Poor old Baggins!' and though few believed any of his tales, he remained very happy till the end of his days, and those were extraordinarily long "- JRR Tolkien, ' The Hobbit '.
I have been reading the responses with interest as I watch the parsing going on.
Originally Posted by PhotoPete
Sorry, I take the author at face value to his statement. If the equipment if paramount as a means of producing information for its own sake - then it does not describe my personal philosphy of photography.
I'm not versed on Susan Sontag's contemporaneous (i.e. late 1960's early 1970's) essay in this realm. Perhaps someone here who is can comment on whether she is in agreement with Flusser?
I'd be curious to know since her essay is considered "seminal" for that era's thinking on photography.
i agree with what was said.
the cameras, lenses &C are all tools
that we work with to make things. sometimes
it is not being a gear-freak, but learning how to
use the camera, lens, film, chemistry to one's advantage.
that is learning how to let the machinery speak and show what is in you head ...
not just show what is in the outside world, but merge that with
the "thing" inside you ...
i too listen michel
This thread has been very useful. When I take up shooting nudes I now have a response for anyone who questions my motives.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by jnanian
nicely put and it is vibrantly reflected in your work.
I like that. No matter how the world looks, seeing it through a camera changes everything.
Like John Sais: It is simply a tool but beyond that, it is a third eye.
Stop trying to get into my mind, There is nothing there!
Thanks guys... Sometimes it feels as if.
Susan Sontag agrees more or less with Barthes and Bazin, to the effect that the photography is supposed to have a more essential relationship with its object than painting or drawing does. She also follows Baudelaire in the "flâneur" attitude that photography encourages: lurk around and pick what is availble rather than compose and structure. Finally, she relates photography essentially to memory, that it is an art irrevocably defined by the disappearance of what it represents. However, she grows more and more suspicious of photography as authentic and valuable over the years, if you read all the essays in On Photography.
But in the end, they are just that: essays. Nice words, insights, intensity, great writing, but no nitty-gritty painful questions.
If you want to have some real food for thought, look at the academic journals like the British Journal of Aesthetics or the Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. It sounds like stuffy old farts talking about the sublime, but it's not. Way more useful than the po-mo/semio/deconstructo fartsies.
Using film since before it was hip.
"One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal
, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11
My APUG Portfolio
This quote is ludicrous...why even print it? Context-schmontext. C'mon, there are no lines to read between here...another graduate of Moron University.