Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2013/08/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Aug 14, 2013, at 5:43 AM, lrzeitlin at aol.com wrote: > Forget about all that nonsense about flapping hummingbird's wings and > moving fan blades. You can't see speeding bullets either. If we were > trying to truly depict reality, any photo which shows a hummingbird's > wings clearly is false. George Lottermoser sums it up best by saying: > "two dimensional visual art relies on convention, creativity and > technology." > > > Any two dimensional photo is an artifact which requires considerable > learning to interpret. Most discussions of photographic "truth" tend to > obscure the fact that ALL photographs are abstract representations of an > external world. When Margaret Mead showed Tahitian natives black and white > photographs of themselves and their village, they rotated the photos this > way and that, shook their heads, and handed them back. "Nice designs", > they said, "but what are they?" Mead then realized that photographs were > such abstractions that only long experience enables their interpretation. > > > Closer to home, your dog does not jump into the TV screen to frolic in the > fields shown in the dog food commercials. Neither does it growl or flee > from the TV intruders in your household. The image on TV is not the real > world to the animal but a flickering pattern on an illuminated tube. We > see the image as a depiction of reality because our intelligence and > experience enables us infer the scene from its abstract representation. > The animal does not. ***my puppy does.... > > > The article that George cites is the best short piece I have seen on the > depiction of motion in art. Read it. > http://www.sophia.org/tutorials/elements-of-art-movement-and-time > > > My comments are based on the feeling that most LUGGERS are so immersed in > two dimensional image making that they assume the learned conventions of > photography represent the world as seen by the human eye. I am > nearsighted. When I remove my glasses EVERYTHING is blurred. When I wake > up in the morning am I to assume that the world is in violent motion which > stops the moment I put on my glasses? > > > I am not a zealot on the topic. If you look at my own submissions to the > Motion contest, you will see that I use both techniques, blur and content, > to imply motion. Horses for courses I say. > > > <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Larry+Z/Dive_001.jpg.html> > <http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Larry+Z/Basketball.jpg.html> > > > Larry Z > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information