The Devil's Work, Part II

ChipMcD said:
I see plenty of digital work at MOMA. The OP suggested that Chris, being a resident of Fort Wayne, IN, didn't know what he was talking about by saying that the art world in general, museums, etc. had accepted digital. Because I see plenty of digital work at MOMA when I visit there, the curators obviously haven't gotten the OP's implied message that the art world doesn't accept digital work.
Click to expand...

Actually, that wasn't my "implied messsage." It was rather that someone doing business in Ft Wayne IN probably shouldn't be so strident about what the "Art World" demands, unless of course he is routinely hanging his photos in galleries or museums in major centers for art, e.g. NYC, Paris, Berlin etc.
 
I know I'm stretching the subject matter of this thread a bit, but I think it's relevant, and probably a concept we're all grappling with to one degree or another.

The whole "devil" thing is actually rooted in a larger context than mere digital photography. It has to do with high information technology itself, or more specifically with artificial intelligence.

There's a whole multi-generational "movement?" behind it known as transhumanism or post humanism and many at the top of the food chain believe the only hope for humankind is to outsmart the limitations of nature by creating a general artificial intelligence, or GAI to handle the coming exponential explosion of information or knowledge called the "singularity."

The implications of this are profound beyond any level of human comprehensibility. The implications are so vast it can barely only be thought of in over the top religious metaphorical terms.

The Lucifer connection has to do with the replacement of old technology with new technology since Lucifer, from time immemorial has been the metaphorical equivalent of the reaching out or grasping for knowledge... eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The bitten Apple. The forbidden fruit.

Technology, in its totality is supposedly a man made force. A force that we as humans look up to for our future salvation.

Thus, we replace God with a Golden Idol, so to speak.

We no longer believe God will save us, we believe "we" will save us by building a technological bridge to salvation, or immortality, or everlasting life.

We are in the minefield of human evolution. Literally! I mean LITERALLY! It has been recently discovered that evolutionary leaps don't happen over great lengths of time, but more like explosions. Boom!

Human evolution essentially means the same thing as
human extinction, because in order to evolve, we have to give up or replace our biological, chemical human limitations.

This will cause great resistance among the populace
as many people would rather die than be transformed into a completely different and unknown life form.

I think this has all happened before.

Cheers. :)
 
ha,ha LOVE it Jack...Funny & Poetry in Motion :)


Jack Conrad said:
Different aspects of the same energy, perhaps.

Lucifer brings fire, light and knowledge.
Satan prods the wicked for eternity.
The Devil makes me look at porn.

Lucifer was a Babylonian King named Helel.
He was also a religious cult leader in the third century
which Constantine defamed for consolidation of power.

Satan is a fallen angel.

The Devil makes me write this stuff.

Digital is like buying food at the super market. Very sanitary and individually wrapped at processing centers. It's a known commodity. Can't argue its advantages. It's a shoppers paradise.

Film is like growing my own garden. It's messy and inefficient. It tends toward wilderness.
It's full of compost and worms. Dirt, weeds, and bugs .
But every now and again I'm rewarded with a few sweet plump tomato's or a dozen golden yolked eggs.

There's efficiency and profit in digital.

There's poetry and mystery in film.
Click to expand...
 
....well, film is like a beautiful woman..(externally, lets not be shallow :D )... and digital is like the fat ugly woman who does not look after herself..... but even the fat ones need some loving :)
...they are all devils.
 
fireblade said:
....well, film is like a beautiful woman..(externally, lets not be shallow :D )... and digital is like the fat ugly woman who does not look after herself..... but even the fat ones need some loving :)
...they are all devils.
Click to expand...

Some guys think fat girls are the beautiful ones.
 
Wow ... away from the computer for three days and log onto RFF to find a film V digital thread running amok on the home page!

Who woulda thunk it? :D
 
fireblade said:
....well, film is like a beautiful woman..(externally, lets not be shallow :D )... and digital is like the fat ugly woman who does not look after herself..... but even the fat ones need some loving :)
...they are all devils.
Click to expand...

Lol...Ah yes, the windsong scent of fixer or the weighty waft of over heating capacitors. :p
 
I think when such claims are made as the OP regarding film, invariably ignored is format size. For simply gorgeous photos that digital can't touch - medium format. For me, though, APS-C has simply caught up to 35mm film, the price of equipment has come down, and suppliers are putting out some decent primes. The advantage has become on of value and flexibility with little to no sacrifice in quality - again, with APS-C. Reasonably priced cameras (now, anyway), comparably quality, greater flexibility, no film to buy and print. It's largely, now, economics. Storage, safety isn't an issue to me. Better than raid drives, I'd say "store in the cloud". I still shoot small format film - just because I love using those cameras, love getting prints made, and the quality is excellent. In the case of the Oly XA, I have full-frame in my pocket, something digital may never achieve. - a full frame camera that slips in a shirt pocket.
 
helenhill said:
what I find more AMAZING about this Thread
is the Rather Uncivil, & Vulgar Approach
in Relating to each Other

Mind Boggling....
I mean its supposed to be All in Good Fun, Good Humor
The way People get sooo defensive and Plain Old Ugly is Astounding

oh Well....:)
Click to expand...

Helen,

this observation is why a few of us rarely get involved in RFF as we used to.
 
Teuthida said:
Actually, that wasn't my "implied messsage." It was rather that someone doing business in Ft Wayne IN probably shouldn't be so strident about what the "Art World" demands, unless of course he is routinely hanging his photos in galleries or museums in major centers for art, e.g. NYC, Paris, Berlin etc.
Click to expand...

rarely does ones actual location play in relationships with the folks that either want or sell your work.

once rolling, in whatever 'art world' you find yourself spinning in, you will quickly realize this.

where you lay your head is in no way a barrier. what's in your head? could be
 
"where you lay your head is in no way a barrier. what's in your head? could be"

Amen... I have completely converted to digital, but still have my film camera and lenses. I enjoy all aspects of the digital photography world, but still love my 35mm Tri-X negatives which I am in the process of scanning and printing (and enjoying) in the digital world.

But then I am also the guy who still has a large vinyl record collection and plays them through vacuum tube electronics. On the flip side I also have a very large iTunes music library.
 
ithrowbuckets said:
According to the simple definition of photography "the art, practice or occupation of taking and printing photographs." and the suffix of graphy ""writing" or a "field of study"" i would have to say that digital is a form of "photography". The sensors are light sensitive and react to light accordingly.
Click to expand...
Sorry for this late entry. I hope it will not sound uncivil or vulgar.
(Not that I noticed any of such a behavior in this tread yet. Happy Birthday Helen, for much sharper "discussion" we should go to "pure digital" forum :D)
This simple definition does not describe photography. Maybe it is English language; word "printing" is applied to many different things. Producing books, producing photographic pictures, producing ink jet or laser print-outs from computer files. All are totally different technologies. With books pattern is pressed on the paper, in photography image from a negative is projected on light sensitive material using light, ink jet is "spitting" paint on a medium. While painting is not producing prints, it is creating pictures. So there is something mechanical and repeatable in "printing".
In my opinion digital photography does not register image on light sensitive material. Sensor works very much the same way light meter does, is producing information about light strength in a given moment. This information is used by software to create an image in very much the same way as painter does. Eye sees the light and create information for the brain which create virtual image in the inside of painter conscience and then painter decides how to project the image on the medium. In real photography this whole process is omitted; light itself is creating unchangeable and true image of reality, save for lens distortions.
 
timor said:
In real photography this whole process is omitted; light itself is creating unchangeable and true image of reality, save for lens distortions.
Click to expand...

Real photography? True image? Of reality? Give me a break!

Real photography is what you make it. Yes, there is lens distortion, also choice of format, lens, type of media, whether digital or film and developer, paper, point of view, cropping, dodging, burning, composition, timing, intention, serendipity, what side of the bed you woke up on, whatever.

To me, photography is whatever you use to make the photograph. Damn the semantics.
 
pggunn said:
Real photography? True image? Of reality? Give me a break!

Real photography is what you make it. Yes, there is lens distortion, also choice of format, lens, type of media, whether digital or film and developer, paper, point of view, cropping, dodging, burning, composition, timing, intention, serendipity, what side of the bed you woke up on, whatever.

To me, photography is whatever you use to make the photograph. Damn the semantics.
Click to expand...


..........+1
 
timor said:
light itself is creating unchangeable and true image of reality, save for lens distortions. (my emphasis)
Click to expand...
If only that were true :( I just tried a stainless steel reel and metal tank for the first time. Didn't do it right and the film was touching in a couple of places. Whatever the light recorded on those frames sure changed - and not in a good way :bang: Fortunately, it was just a test roll (I'm not completely stupid) but still...

...Mike
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom