> the specific > camera-beyond-its-capabilities aesthetic starts to push the > moment into a murkiness of potential meanings because the > possible intended implications of the depiction are so much > broader than the one little narrow moment being depicted.
Mark! [...] > Should the > camera-beyond-its-limits aesthetic be understood as > nostalgia, early aesthetic fixation, or a comment on the > scope of the utility of technology? Mark! > I take > the murkiness as an assertion of the irrelevance of the > chronological location of the moment depicted Mark! > -- Graydon, who figures that might well be more aesthetic > peculiarity than you wanted > Mark! I like the paradigmatic reference to semiotic discourse implied by the neo-contextual sublimities (as distinct from the Frankian (in an intrinsically non-self-denying Robertian sense) selbst-anschau). Salut! Jack Foucaull > Sent: 13 December 2009 16:10 > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: PESO - The Whisper - redux > > On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 09:23:26AM -0500, frank theriault scripsit: > > As per Paul's suggestion I brightened it just a bit and as > per Brian's > > suggestion I tried to get rid of a bit of the noise/grain. > I'm still > > not sure that I don't prefer the original, but I'd be interested to > > know what you all think. > > > > http://knarfdummyblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/whisper-redux.html > > > > Original: > > > > http://knarfinthecity.blogspot.com/2009/12/whisper.html > > > > Your thoughts and comments are appreciated. > > My problem with this particular photo is that the degree of, > hrm, moderate murkiness gives it a sense of being old; these > people are grandparents now. > > That takes away from the slice-of-life immediacy of the whole > thing; the event depicted is a very immediate, > right-this-second transitory event. > There's a point to be made about yeah, that kind of > right-this-second transitory event happened fifty years ago > and five hundred years ago, too, but the specific > camera-beyond-its-capabilities aesthetic starts to push the > moment into a murkiness of potential meanings because the > possible intended implications of the depiction are so much > broader than the one little narrow moment being depicted. > > (Is this *ironic* reference to "it's been going on as long as > people were people" or *non-ironic* reference to "it's been > going as long as people were people"? Should the > camera-beyond-its-limits aesthetic be understood as > nostalgia, early aesthetic fixation, or a comment on the > scope of the utility of technology? And so on.) > > I don't find your photos that lack the murkiness to do this, > even when they're quite dark. I think this is because I take > the murkiness as an assertion of the irrelevance of the > chronological location of the moment depicted; "it doesn't > matter when this happened". "It doesn't matter when this > happened" is a lot of weight to put on the bar scene > equivalent of "O HAI" and I don't think the moment in > question is quite up to that. It's a fine and excellent > moment; it's not plausibly a > *robust* moment unless we know for sure that they are now > grandparents with one another, and we don't know that, so the > dislocation in time (to > me) diminishes the effectiveness of the scene. > > -- Graydon, who figures that might well be more aesthetic > peculiarity than you wanted > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly > above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
