RE: [Leica] Autofocus Leica R, Now Art in the Dark

["Kit McChesney | acmefoto" <kitmc@acmefoto.com>]

George--

Yes, all these are great questions, absolutely. Don't you love asking them,
and thinking about them, and talking to others about them? And yes, I
understand what you mean by outlining the difference between someone who has
had sight in the past, but may have lost it, and someone who has had no
conventional sight since birth. Of course. The same with music, and the
example of Beethoven. There is also memory of what has been seen with the
eyes to consider, for sure.

Would Ludwig have created if he'd been deaf since birth? An unknown, for
sure. How can we know? But there are also people who may create music never
having heard it. And it could be very compelling to hear, don't you think?
The same for someone who has never "seen." They may create images that are
equally compelling to view. My point is only that let's not decide that a
creation by a person who cannot perceive the end result in the same way that
anyone else can perceive it should be discounted as serious work. The
creative process more complex than this, as I'm sure you'll agree. It is,
for the most part, and most creative people agree, mysterious.

The analogy of the writer rewriting is an interesting point. As a writer I
can say that the process of writing is not always one in which a person puts
down a sentence expecting it to be perfect the first go-round, and finds to
his or her disappiontment that it did not spring fully formed onto the page,
needing no further work. (Though this is what many college students believe;
they look at a page of published text and think that the writer put the
sentence down the first time just as they see it printed. That's one reason
it's so hard to teach writing). But again, there are writers who have
written marvelous work who do not revise; I don't believe we can always
predicate the "success" of an artist's work upon whether he or she needed
critiques to learn to "improve," to get "better."  That somehow the thing
created isn't good unless it's been worked over. Sometimes a beautifully
formed image springs out of the blue. Or a phrase. Or a picture. I think
that if we are tuning ourselves to the spheres and to our intuition, we are
graced with the gift of a creation that astounds us. I'm sure we've all
experienced that ... looking at a drawing we've made, or a sentence written,
a picture in the developing tray, and said, "Who did that?" That is actually
one of the most ecstatic moments of creation, I think, to realize that we
are getting help from somewhere, because we are open to it. Artists and
musicians often report that they don't know where the images or songs they
sing come from ... that they feel they are channels for something higher.
The Creative Force that drives all? I'd bet my Leica on it.

As for how images are created, not every visual image is created based upon
an interaction between the eyes and something else visual. Many artists find
their inspiration for visual creations in purely non-visual sources, like
music, for example. And many artists have suffered greatly because others
were unable to understand the images they'd created, because they "didn't
look like" anything anyone had ever seen. Yet those images have
revolutionized the way we see the world. Photography has had a huge
influence on the other visual arts, like painting, but the relationship goes
in the other direction as well.  A "picture" need not be a "picture" of
another image. Not at all. And likewise, many musicians find their
inspiration in sources non-musical. Which also begs the question, "Are the
differences between media all that significant?" Maybe not. There is an
artist whose work is housed in the Prinzhorn Collection in Switzerland, who
created mountains of detailed colored drawings for decades, who, when
finished with each one, rolled the drawing into the shape of horn and
created music he said was what he had drawn on the sheets of paper. Point
being that we must, I believe, always push ourselves to expand beyond the
limits of where we think we can go, what we think we can do, what we believe
we can see. That's all I'm trying to say.

As for animals typing novels, that I won't put in the same category as a
deaf musician or a blind artist. Logically, those don't fit ... "one of
these things doesn't belong ..." I am talking about creation by a human
being, with a human imagination. I wouldn't deign nor dare to equate a
novel-typing animal with a human being's creation, regardless of his or her
abilities, be they conventional, or different.

And yes, marveling at the exceptions, as you say, is the joy in being alive.
Marveling at everything. That's why we take up our pencils, our cameras, our
paintbrushes, our guitars and pianos and dance across the stage. It's all a
miracle.

With very fond regards, too. :)

Kit

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of George
Lottermoser
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 12:54 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: RE: [Leica] Autofocus Leica R


kitmc@acmefoto.com (Kit McChesney | acmefoto)3/13/03

> What difference does age make?
> Or if the person was blind from birth?

Well, I find the entire discussion of blind photographers, deaf musicians,
animals typing novels, et al rather amusing. And so I ask my amused self,
"If
Ludwig von were deaf from birth would he have composed music?"

I've engaged my blind friend (lost his sight in a boat racing accident when
18)
in this rather amazing discussion. He thought it would make a difference.
And I
can "see" why. He believes that his mental imagery is significantly
different
(and photographic in some sense) than someone blind since birth.

And I can imagine that if I lost my sight (currently 56) I could fairly
easily
and probably would exercise my 35 years of professional visual experience in
directing things as Johnny has suggested. While my blind young friend,
without
the experience, would have signigicantly more difficulty in doing so.

I fully accept all exceptions to all rules and conventional guidelines.
However,
the specifics of age and experience would have to impact the intentions as
well
as the results.

>Since
>images are themselves "created" in the mind anyway, is the ability to
>visualize predicated on having had conventional sight, that is, using
>one's
>eyes to see, or is it an ability that is innate?

I believe the ability and even the necessity to create is innate. However,
as a
professional visual artist in many different media, I know full well that
whatever the mind has conceived develops in the interaction of the eyes with
what is being created. I have often, almost always, went into production
with a
mental image which ends up quite different as production takes place. I
don't
think many novelists have written without extensive rewrites. In 99.9% of
cases
a visual artist "needs" to see the work in progress and in completion to go
on
and create another - to learn.

God bless (and I marvel at) the exceptions.

> Do folks who can't see
>live
>in what we perceive as "darkness"?

My young blind friend says, "Sometimes yes, sometimes no." depending on his
mood
and as the years go by - his perception changes - ask a person, blind since
birth to describe his visual perceptions - then a newly bind person. You
will
receive amazing descriptions.

Fond regards,

G e o r g e   L o t t e r m o s e r,    imagist�

<�>Peace<�>   <�>Harmony<�>  <�>Stewardship<�>

Presenting effective messages in beautiful ways
                                     since 1975
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
eMail                    imagist@concentric.net
voice                              262 241 9375
fax                                262 241 9398
                      Lotter Moser & Associates
10050 N Port Washington Rd  -  Mequon, WI 53092
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- --
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