I said some valid points. And they are: >" Is more being "filled in" when viewing a room, a photograph of >same, or a >painting by either Meissonier or Monticelli?
>How can such a thing be measured? >Doesn't it depend on who is doing the viewing and what they are >looking for? >This issue has nothing to do with either aesthetic value or the difference >between painting and photography. >Regarding "dead photos- alive paintings", I was speaking metaphorically -- but >come to think of it -- a form can be considered as 'alive' in the >same way as >a virus. It can only reproduce itself within another life form, >i.e. a human >mind." Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: Re: dead photos- alive paintings Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 15:41:16 -0700 (PDT) What's valid? First, there doesn't seem to be any distinction between art and anything else when we are speaking of visual perception/construction, so Miller is making a moot point while pretending it reveals a flaw in my comment. Some people do measure what we see and how much. Obviously, again, there is much the human eye cannot see all, from certain bands of the light wave to things to small. Further, we've all had the experience of contextual identifying when we recognize that an "a" is not a "d" even though they sometimes look quite alike. Hockney showed how photographs distort what we think we see. He also copied the technique that movie people used to use when scouting a setting. They'd photograph a room with hundreds of shots showing ahead, above, below, around behind, etc., sort of like space photo, and then stitch them all together. So yes, a photo can show different planes that a 19C salon painting. When Miller argues for "dead" photos by saying his adjective is a metaphor, he is really trying to denote the state of being dead to tilt our understanding of a photograph. It's like saying the sky is "pretty". Some assumed code or belief for pretty is assumed and then applied to something that is self-evident, the sky. Because we take the sky as self-evident, we are coerced to think it's prettiness is also self-evident, when in fact it is not. If Miller wants to talk aesthetics, then he needs to pay attention to ways in which language can falsely denote a quality to something that needs definition or is in dispute. Blabbing doesn't count. wc ________________________________ From: Boris Shoshensky <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, September 5, 2009 10:19:49 AM Subject: Re: dead photos- alive paintings Some valid points by Chris, for me. Boris Shoshensky To: [email protected] Subject: dead photos- alive paintings Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 15:06:59 GMT According to William, both paintings and photographs "obscure some information that is "filled in" by the viewer", and if we questioned him a bit further, I'm sure he would admit that the human mind does some "filling in" when looking at anything. Is more being "filled in" when viewing a room, a photograph of same, or a painting by either Meissonier or Monticelli? How can such a thing be measured? Doesn't it depend on who is doing the viewing and what they are looking for? This issue has nothing to do with either aesthetic value or the difference between painting and photography. Regarding "dead photos- alive paintings", I was speaking metaphorically -- but come to think of it -- a form can be considered as 'alive' in the same way as a virus. It can only reproduce itself within another life form, i.e. a human mind. I suppose we can note that styles of photography are reproduced from one generation of photographers to another - so in that sense, photographic form is alive. But there can be a certain quality to the drawn form, in either drawing, painting, or sculpture, that is completely outside the facture of photography. I can't prove the presence or importance of this quality. Like so much else in aesthetics, you either see it or you don't. ____________________________________________________________ Click here for easy weight loss help and diet information. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxYFS6U5TR1NofKhFGzpcqPzf aunUPAqzYUGrz79t46MEUCGw4gfWw/
