batwister: The man was talking about the buildings as objects and not as subjects making a photograph. At least it seemed so to me: the buildings were discrete entities and recorded as such. Subjectivity did not seem (!) to enter into the equation.
From beginning to end of the conversation in the Italian Market I felt that that man's focus was not upon a subjective aesthetic (geared towards naked appeal), but, instead, accurate, objective representation of what had to be recorded. But, true, he WAS in the business of 'selling' to the public at large, the hoi polloi, and not to an esoteric group well versed on what was 'proper' in a technical sense. Thus, I wonder about his underlying reasons for this focus upon only 'accuracy'.
You say, batwister: "Both accuracy and aesthetics are illusions. Unfortunately, because the literal minded can't grasp aesthetics, they become preoccupied with accuracy..."
Well, you can argue this philosophically, but, at least ostensibly, accuracy can be measured, batwister, but, again, maybe even impartial measurement turns out to be an illusion, just like two plus two equaling four just might be illusion; and life itself, more of the same. This can get very deep. But what I am trying to impart here is the difference between subjective beauty (aesthetics) and rigorous, repeatable, measurement (ie, hues attaining a precise color temperature). But, then, again, with PE's comment about metamerism, those very hues have to be viewed in a 'perfect' (again, measurable) lighting situation (right?), in order to be accurately perceived and cannot merely stand by themselves without that complementary 'lighting paradigm'. Your comments are very interesting, batwister.
And as far as a 'riddle wrapped in a mystery': you mean that there are other such causes for becoming flummoxed other than due to Churchill's assessment of Russia? - David Lyga
Last edited by David Lyga; 05-26-2013 at 12:01 PM. Click to view previous post history.