I never understood this statement....

taemo said:
where was that quote from, that will help on understanding why it was said

but to me it's the instant output that you get from polaroids versus film prior to the digital age, especially when working with complicated lights, flash and strobes where you won't know the final outcome until you actually shoot it.
Click to expand...

It's right up above. See post #16.
 
The dichotomy between the visible and invisible is a relatively common theme in art, more specifically painting. In very rough terms it is describing your success in moving beyond just recreating the physical representation of what you see and being able to include the "soul" of what you are trying to represent.

Rarely used with regards to photography and I fail to understand how a Polaroid enables you to see the dichotomy any more than any other print would. Maybe he is trying to say that having the instant feedback from the polaroid image lets you assess your prospective image in advance before committing it to film.

If that is true than digital is even better, right?

Need more beer. :D
 
kbg32 said:
"Using Polaroids to understand the dichotomy between the visible and the invisible."

dichotomy - noun;
a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different

If you took a picture of something, how could it have been invisible?
Click to expand...

Just another excellent example of Bull**** Baffling Brains.
 
I went to art school. Two of them. I wore hip waders, a raincoat, and carried a shovel. I heard everything.

The older I get, the less dogmatic I've become. I can't stand standing in the stuff if you know what I mean.

Pathetic profundity.
 
Perhaps it is because it is "not a very good job", as Godfrey rightly says, it is all the more thought provoking. Does it mean anything? If so, what?

Look at the picture. It raises questions about what we see at a glance; what we think we see when we start interpreting it; and the differences we see when we compare a picture and what was in front of the camera.

Sure, you can dismiss it if you like -- but what do you get from such a frankly anti-intellectual stance? I don't think I understand it either, but like the OP I find it worthy of thought.

Cheers,

R.
 
kbg32 said:
It was on Lens Culture.
Click to expand...

I always think of Lens Culture right before I visit a photo show or visit a museum. :D

Ned Bojic said:
I always refuse to talk and write about my work. In my exhibitions, there are no statements. People don't read that stuff.
Click to expand...

You just stand there silently?

Rather Neil Jenney of you? (“the most famous artist you’ve never heard of”)
 
Ned Bojic said:
I always refuse to talk and write about my work. In my exhibitions, there are no statements. People don't read that stuff.
Click to expand...

That's a curious attitude, Ned. Do you market your photography? How does your audience know that you have an exhibition or what it is about?

When I've hung exhibitions, the visitors I had the best time talking with were the ones who read my short discussion of the photos. The ones who never read it are also the ones who never have any questions nor ever buy anything.

Photographers should be able to speak about their work without resorting to fiddle-faddle. :)

G
 
Godfrey said:
That's a curious attitude, Ned. Do you market your photography? How does your audience know that you have an exhibition or what it is about?
Click to expand...

Neil Jenney -- you did read my link? There are many ways to sell oneself.

When I was young I never much liked talking about work, I found it difficult to do that "dance" with collectors. Probably easier now, just let them talk.
 
With a 1/100000th second shutter time you could probably achieve a similar goal, the dichotomy between what's visible and perceptible. So what, isn't that what we use technology for anyway, to do those things that overcome our limitations?
 
Sometimes you read a book or a statement and wonder about the meaning. Most times you question yourself for not understanding it when it reality it is the writer that can not communicate properly or makes meaningless statements. The more you read criticism and philosophy the more you will come across the inexactitude and confusion in a writer's ideas.
 
BillBingham2 said:
Invisibility simply means it's something you could not perceive. Polaroids provide you an instantaneous perspective that you can easily study. Aspects you missed might found after but a few seconds of study.

Perception is reality. Ask any tree who falls in a forest.

B2 (;->
Click to expand...

It shows on paper what you may not have noticed in the VF. How many times has a print captured something that surprised you? Its happened to me too many times, but hey I'm not that talented.
 
Steve Bellayr said:
Sometimes you read a book or a statement and wonder about the meaning. Most times you question yourself for not understanding it when it reality it is the writer that can not communicate properly or makes meaningless statements. The more you read criticism and philosophy the more you will come across the inexactitude and confusion in a writer's ideas.
Click to expand...

And the opposite is often frequently true: people indignantly claiming statements are meaningless because they don't understand what is being said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom