The simple answer is "No". Images are a means of communication. If there's no one to communicate with, the image is useless.
Now if I had repair the still that was in the cave, and I wanted to make sure that I remembered how I took it apart, so that I could reassemble it correctly, I'd take photos. In that case I'd be essentially communicating with myself from the past. Tom C. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Fernando <[email protected]> wrote: > I see lots of arguments here defining "good" or "bad" around the > "viewer". This reminds me of this discussion I read some time ago, > it's a simple thought experiment that got me thinking about why I > shoot what I shoot. > > The premise is simple: > "Let's say you just emerged from a cave to find that everyone else was > gone. You're the last person on the planet. > > None will ever follow. > > You have every camera ever made at your disposal, as well as unlimited > lenses, film, batteries, paper, as well as crates all the world's > remaining Polaroid film. Whatever you would need to shoot whatever you > want for the rest of your life, without consideration of cost or > effort, would be at your disposal. (Your cave is also stocked with > food, water, clothes and all of that other stuff, so you won't need to > expend much time or effort on basic survival.) > > Knowing that you will be the only one to ever, ever see your pictures, > would you still bother to make them?" > > Source: http://www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/discuss/72157611943044274/ > -- 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.
