john_van_v
Well-known
Uh huh, that's the discussion.Sparrow said:
I would have agreed with you, say, last September before I started reading about the evolution of our neurology in terms of the development of our artistic natures: human evolution.
What we have in every heathy human is a single package that operates on multiple levels, or layers, not unlike the layer of the Inernet communication principle. At the bottom of the network layer stack we have the physical layer which analogizes to our neurons, and how they interact internally and also interrelationally; at the top of the network stack we have the application layer (or is it presentation layer) which analogizes to this discussion that we are having. In between are connecting layers that accomplish different things that the other layers cannot.
Another analogy that is useful is the Russian doll model of the development of what I am talking about, which is usually discussed in terms of the evolution of morality by [SIZE=-1]Frans B. M. de Waal[/SIZE], which I think of as the evolution of artistic appreciation and the ablitiy to innovate. The inner most doll, our most distant ancestor has a rudimentary moral sense, like that of a mouse, but still a strong one. As the dolls get bigger, they represent better versions of the orginal until we get to the outermost doll, which is us right now.
(Well, not quite, the ultimate outermost doll is the humpback whale which has mental constructs we don't have called network clusters.)
Putting these two linear concepts together into an three dimensional model, I believe we have a model of what art really is. Because of the evolutionary nature of the model, there is no place for the electronic curcuit, except to mimic the natural experience. Mimic invariably means "poor substitute."
As I have mentioned in several places, I have all my life appreciated digital art if it is true to its meaning, as being digital. I have also felt this way about analog electronic art, which I mention in terms of Ozzie Osborn.
But now that I realize how natural we healthy humans are by nature, the "modernness" of prehistoric cave paintings is no accident. We, as we become sophisticated, are returning to our natural roots. The logical construct behind our natural feelings is so far beyond any calculated logical construct, such as in digital art, that I now feel that the digital art pales in comparison to natural art.
If this is true, then we are kind of down to an "equal rights" argument. We are saying that digital art is as equal to and relevant as natural, or analog, art, only so that digital aritsts don't have their feelings hurt.
Jeff Coons comes to mind here; he was a stock broker who became a famous painter with digitalized canvases of absolutely dreadful photographs. I never for a minute thought Coon's work was art by any defintion, and I now believe that he pumped up his art in much the same way stock brokers pump up stock. Unfortuately, Coons's paintings have not crashed in prices like the new ecomomy did in 2000.
Last edited:
FrankS
Registered User
john_van_v said:
Yeah John, whatever. Why be that way? Seems like you are sensitive enough to discern subtleties, why so blunt with your interpersonal interactions here? Or is it the spaces between us from which we've evolved? blah, blah, blah
Last edited:
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Wow, I've read a lot of weird threads in RFF (some of them mine 
) but this one ranks up there... so "different" than what I expect from reading the title.
) but this one ranks up there... so "different" than what I expect from reading the title.Sparrow
Veteran
john_van_v said:
So that’s a no then?
Would you agree that human perception, our nervous system, is only possible due to a natural electronic circuit? Why would a mechanical device be a better interface to it?
PS it’s not an issue for me, if t goes click when I press the button I’m happy, just interested
Last edited:
K
Kin Lau
Guest
Kin Lau said:
Just tested the Minolta XD-11, Pentax ME Super and Nikon FG. No difference in whether it's set to mechanical release or electro-magnetic release on all 3.
Bobfrance
Over Exposed
Not had a lot of dealings with the folks on this particular thread but I have found RFF one of the friendliest forums on the net. In comment on this particular thread I'd just like to say:
Franks S - I have read quite a number of your posts and have a lot of respect for your views and knowledge.
Tuolumne - Never come across you before but you seem okay to me and I think you have as much right to comment as anybody else.
John_van_v - Never come across you before either. You have obviously put a great deal of thought into your world view. Would it be too much to ask that you extend a little patience/tolerance to those for which it is new and may not share it?
That's me done. I don't wish to hijack what is a very engaging thread.
Carry on!
Bob.
Franks S - I have read quite a number of your posts and have a lot of respect for your views and knowledge.
Tuolumne - Never come across you before but you seem okay to me and I think you have as much right to comment as anybody else.
John_van_v - Never come across you before either. You have obviously put a great deal of thought into your world view. Would it be too much to ask that you extend a little patience/tolerance to those for which it is new and may not share it?
That's me done. I don't wish to hijack what is a very engaging thread.
Carry on!
Bob.
john_van_v
Well-known
I know, it's great.shadowfox said:Wow, I've read a lot of weird threads in RFF (some of them mine
I tried to start this argument on the Fujica list on yahoo, which is really a Fujica-biased m42 (Pentax, for newbies) thread discussion.
No go, they ignored me; not to take away from that group, it's actually a pretty cool group, mostly collectors, and damn few hotheads.
Last edited:
john_van_v
Well-known
What I have been trying to say, by using various examples, that the human nervous system, which is different than the artistic system, can key in to a mechanical device because we have evoloved around mechanical experiences, such as trees and tools. That is just the way it is, and that is my "proof."Sparrow said:
The best that electronic circuitry can do is mimic a mechanical experience; the web, for instance, shows us an HTML document that we are supposed to believe is a piece of paper. It does this deceit pretty well, I will admit, but I would still rather have the more honest obviosly digital character screen we had in the old days.
Then we come to the word "perception." Starting last September, I started to doubt there is such a thing. Using the Constructivist idea of a community of knowledge, what we do in a healthy human community is share information; the community of knowledge, or community knowledge, is the truth. If it weren't, we would all starve-- again a really simple truth.
So in the bigger sense, also as I tried to relate before, the entire cosmic conciousness (tongue in cheek reference there) flows through the photographer's finger into the camera shutter in ways not different that a classical pianist. The entire experience, which is real rather than percpetive, becomes integrally connected, the experience expressed in the photograph is the summation, yet only a piece of, the entire (Constructivist) community of knowledge. And to get that final edge of perfection, we need to have that mechanical connection because, as I mentioned, that is how we have evolved.
Still, true, that is an indirect, though valid "proof."
Read on Brother !!
Last edited:
Sparrow
Veteran
So simply because we evolved around mechanical devices we are unable to continue that evolution through electrical ones? I think not
pachuco
El ****
Um, I like mechanical because I can't remember to buy batteries.
Sparrow
Veteran
I too have respect for Frank’s opinion
john_van_v
Well-known
I have Nikon EM, which is about the same as an FG I think. It has film in it and its at the beginning of the roll; none the less I took a few practice shots and didn't notice a difference.Kin Lau said:
Then I took my Oly OM-1, which actually has a slower response than the EM, but I felt I could coordinate the shutter realease with an actual event more so than with the EM.
What I mean by coordinate is match the rhythm of the event with the mechanics of the camera.
If you are trying to catch a soccer player indenting a soccer ball w/ a kick, you cannot think of the process as a linear series of events each with a delay such as human reaction time. You have to be "into" the scene enough, and aware of the camera enough, to coordinate the two events. On the neurological level, this is empathy; this is art.
(Ok, I am ready-- you want to know why I am being so mean to the flaming sock puppet if I use the word empathy all the time.)
ferider
Veteran
Hmm, what a different thread ....
So the definition of "healthy community" is absolute and truth is not ?
Roland.
john_van_v said:
So the definition of "healthy community" is absolute and truth is not ?
Roland.
Tuolumne
Veteran
I think Jacques Derrida preferred mechanical shutters, too
I think Jacques Derrida preferred mechanical shutters, too
We think we click the electronic camera of today or the mechanical camera of yesterday. But our click of today is of yesterday and elsewhere. The miracle is that clicking has not been cut from its archaic roots -- even if we do not remember, our finger remembers, and what we say began to be said three thousand years ago. Inversely shutter clicking has incorporated our own times, before even we know, the most recent elements, linguistic and semantic particles blown by the present winds.
/T
I think Jacques Derrida preferred mechanical shutters, too
We think we click the electronic camera of today or the mechanical camera of yesterday. But our click of today is of yesterday and elsewhere. The miracle is that clicking has not been cut from its archaic roots -- even if we do not remember, our finger remembers, and what we say began to be said three thousand years ago. Inversely shutter clicking has incorporated our own times, before even we know, the most recent elements, linguistic and semantic particles blown by the present winds.
/T
john_van_v
Well-known
Sparrow said:
Not in your lifetime; not in anyone's. Evoltionary changes at our level of sophistication take 10's of thousands of years at least. On the other hand, we have nearly completely devolved it into nothingness at least a few times in the last hundred.
Now we are melting the ice caps, and calling it evolition denying that there is such a thing as de-evolotion.
Or am I being too intolerant of all the wealthy globalists who are trying hoplessly to satistify the vacuums which are their souls --really relace their missing artistic neurons-- with wealth, control, and the comfort of their slutty wives: the people trying to destroy the planet.
I am sorry if I get that way, but it seems real. Last I checked photography is real.
Last edited:
john_van_v
Well-known
Tuolumne said:
Happy now?
Tuolumne
Veteran
"If you are trying to catch a soccer player indenting a soccer ball w/ a kick, you cannot think of the process as a linear series of events each with a delay such as human reaction time. You have to be "into" the scene enough, and aware of the camera enough, to coordinate the two events. On the neurological level, this is empathy; this is art."
If you are trying to capture the indenting of a soccer ball with a kick you should use a camera with a motor drive, either digital or film, either mechanical or electronic. It doesn't matter. Else, you are trying to build the Panama Cancal with a shovel. While doing so is possible, it will take as long as the evolution of our nervous system to interface with the mechanical film cameras of tomorrow.
/T
If you are trying to capture the indenting of a soccer ball with a kick you should use a camera with a motor drive, either digital or film, either mechanical or electronic. It doesn't matter. Else, you are trying to build the Panama Cancal with a shovel. While doing so is possible, it will take as long as the evolution of our nervous system to interface with the mechanical film cameras of tomorrow.
/T
Tuolumne
Veteran
What fun!
/T
/T
Joop van Heijgen
Established
The 'mechanical shutter' is better for those who want 'to feel', ' to smell', ' to hear', to communicate' the camera. This in order to have the idea that you can 'understand' your camera and can communicate with it! The camera like an 'organic' instrument!
Sparrow
Veteran
john_van_v said:
The mechanical shutter has been around for “10's of thousands of years” what did we use it for before photography? thank god we haven’t got the hang of firearms yet!
I’m going to count electric sheep mow, it’s late here, goodnight
- Status
- Not open for further replies.