At 13:50 2002-12-30 +0200, Dr E D F Williams wrote:
Interestingly enough I just recently tried to take a picture (alas with a Leica IIIf, not a Pentax) of a rather arrogant and intense young nethead, brandishing a green laser the size of a fountain pen of which on (apparently) "one gazes into twice". He claimed that by aiming the laser through my lens during exposure it would black out not only the current frame, but the whole film - the plastic backing supposedly acting as a fibre optic conductor - a statement I didn't feel inclined to verify experimentally. However, whatever the validity of his claim I'm confident any part of my images (soulful or otherwise) would not be incorporated into the laser, in which case using the above logic clearly is a false assumption, and about as meaningful as Lars Ulrich trying to explain how mp3 players are stealing his "intellectual" property.In some parts of the world, we have recently been told, the act of taking a photograph of a person (with a Pentax camera?) removes a part of his or her 'soul'. One must assume, using the same logic, that this 'part' is somehow incorporated into the photographic image.
However we should not try to read too much into the phrasing here. Current taboos against photographing people are mostly drawn from Islamic practice (not the Koran), where early theologians feared it could promote idolatry (man being created in the image of God, &c). How this was explained in lay terms is difficult to foresee. Being depicted speeding on the highway by a camera box would deprive me of a significant bit of soulfulness also.
______________________________________________________________________
Geir Aalberg http://www.aalberg.com/ http://www.fandom.no/
