What did Albert Maysles mean when he said it?
On 6/7/2015 7:04 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
So, the quote could be stated as "The eye of the viewer suit/flatter the
eye of the Photographer."
Doesn't make sense in this context.
Am I missing something here?
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
----- Original Message ----- From: "mike wilson" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: test
"Become" can also mean to suit or flatter, which changes the meaning
rather dramatically.
On 6 June 2015 at 23:30, Ken Waller <[email protected]> wrote:
I figure since I'm the one dictating what my viewer is going to see
thru my
images - my eyes becomes theirs.
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
----- Original Message ----- From: "mike wilson"
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: test
Depends on what you mean by "becomes".
On 6 June 2015 at 17:21, Ken Waller <[email protected]> wrote:
Seems to me that's backwards.
The eye of the photographer becomes the eye of the viewer.
-----Original Message-----
From: "P.J. Alling" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: test
Seems you passed...
On 6/6/2015 11:29 AM, Theodore Beilby wrote:
"The eye of the viewer becomes the eye of the Photographer." Albert
Maysles
--
Science - Questions we may never find answers for.
Religion - Answers we must never question.
--
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.
