Simon

1] My bad I did not know the technology was passive.

2] I still think that this is passive.

3] This was me being late night picky! Yes the model depicts something but 
what? Is it the concept of DNA or a particular identifiable instance of DNA or 
…..

 

As to “Photograph 51” I am unfamiliar with this particular example of the 
photographers art but again, when you say DNA what do you mean?

 

Stephen Stead

Tel +44 20 8668 3075 

Mob +44 7802 755 013

E-mail  <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]

LinkedIn Profile  <http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads> 
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads

 

From: Crm-sig [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Simon Spero
Sent: 24 July 2016 22:57
To: martin <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] P62 Homework

 

 

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 3:39 PM martin <[email protected] 
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:

Dear Franco, All,

Dear Martin, Stephen, all :-) 

 

The property "depicts" was meant to do it via a visual process, in particular 
statues and paintings, that by their whole shape and surface properties 
represent something. This means, by
surface properties and passive light reflection. 

 

[all uses of "depict"  or "depicts" that follow should be understood as 
referring to P62, possibly with the second argument unspecified] 

 

This roughly matches my understanding, which makes a couple of Stephen's 
answers confusing; possibly because my questions were unclear. 

 

1)  a picture on an e-ink display does not depict. 

This surprised me, as e-ink (and e-paper in general) work by passive light 
reflection, and only require power to change the display. 

The intended contrast was with the active OLED display, which emits light, and 
requires continuous power. 

 

2) a picture that requires a UV lamp to be seen does depict. 

This question was aimed at clarifying whether the image must be produced by 
(subtractive) reflection of incident light, or if fluorescence caused 
absorption of that light was sufficient. 

 

3) a ball-and-stick model of DNA is  not a depiction of DNA. 

 

I am unsure why this is the case; it is a symbolic representation, created by 
human activity, and intended to be decoded using the human visual system 
without the assistance of specific equipment. 

If it does not depict, then it is not clear that "Guernica" does.  

 

I assume it is uncontroversial that  "Photograph 51"  depicts DNA? 

 

Simon 

Reply via email to