Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/03/12
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Well, perhaps you should take a look at what some of the blind artists have created before you make a sweeping generalization. And to say that you can mathematically represent music actually proves the point; mathematical representation of what is in the musician's mind is just that--a representation. So is the photograph, a drawing with light, a representation of what the blind person sees, or experiences. It is the same with people who can seen in the conventional sense. If we argue that a blind person cannot legitimately take a photograph, then we have to agree that neither can a sighted person. Why? That assumption places all the emphasis on the mechanical function of the instrument (the camera) itself, and on the ability of the person behind the camera to adhere to some tacit rule that says "you have to see exactly the way the camera sees." But even with all its technical sophistication, the camera is a dumb object. In the hands of an artist, it becomes a tool, a paintbrush, a musical instrument. The entire argument against accepting the work of a blind artist is based on the assumption that the person who makes the image must be able to "see" it as everyone else sees it, and later to enjoy it in the same sense that everyone else enjoys it. I don't know of any artist who is worth her or his salt that sees the outcome of the creative process in the same way that anyone else sees it, quite to the contrary. I can say this with authority, as I am an artist myself, and lo and behold, I have made drawings in total darkness. Sometimes the eyes can be a hindrance in creating a work. There is more to making an image that "copying" what one sees in the "real" world. An image is not simply a representation, a duplicate, a photocopy of the stuff in front of our eyes. The creation of art is about the intersection, a conversation, between the artist's mind/spirit and spirit with some kind of inspiration, be it the natural world, something in one's heart, mind, imagination, memory. The point is, Beethoven "heard" the music in his head and made notations on paper which was later translated into sound by an orchestra. What is the difference between his doing that, and someone who can't "see" with their eyes creating an idea in the mind, and "representing" it on a piece of photographic paper using a camera as a tool for drawing? And suppose someone could create a digital image in a similar way, and later "translate" that digital information into sound, into a musical representation of the image? If Mozart "thought" up his music and wrote it down, how does that differ from a blind artist's "thinking" an image and using a camera to represent that thoughts? Conceptually there is no difference. Kit - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Randy Jensen Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 9:52 AM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: RE: [Leica] Autofocus Leica R Comparing blind photogrphy to deaf composition is ridiculous. You can mathematically represent music. Mozart did most of his composition by just "thinking" of the music. He could have been deaf and written the same way. I agree with bd in that if you can't even SEE (now I'm talking BLIND - not just hindered sight) how can you represent what you can't see mathmatically or any other way? And the deaf composer thing only goes so far. It's really only the great composers that are capable of this. Make Britney Spears go deaf and see if she can write ANY damn thing. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html