Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/12/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> yes... and for me "new" > > as applied at least to those things that we become aware of... > should imply great, or maybe important, or at least worthwhile... I would agree to some extent. Yet, when a "new" whatever first appears it may take some time to become "great" while it's "importance" may or may not be recognized. The early digital image capturing devices took quite some time to become "good" let alone "great." Yet enough folks saw the importance to continue to develop the technology to where it has now achieved some greatness. > the problem in this thread I think, is that cutting edge is used to > mean new... > (and apparantly that's enough) Enough? That's where we begin another level to the discussion. Does enough substance exist in the hypothesis to continue to pursue research? I suspect different sensibilities will arrive at separate conclusions. > so we are agreeing, the requirements do not include great, or > important, or even worthwhile... Only time will tell if "new" ideas, whether about technique, style, aesthetics, etc. will prove important or great. This, almost by definition, seems true of all all "new bleeding edge" ideas in various matters, including the art and craft of photography. > in fact, by definition, "new" suggests that most of it is going > to be garbage... I really think that this depends on the seriousness, skill, intelligence and sincerity of the creator/developer working at the bleeding edge. I see a lot of the work (that others consider garbage) as thoughtful, well developed, viable attempts at saying new things in new ways. Whether these works will prove important or great steps in the development of the art and craft seems more of an historical question. Regards, George Lottermoser george@imagist.com www.imagist.com Picture A Week - www.imagist.com/paw_07 On Dec 8, 2007, at 6:08 PM, Steve Barbour wrote: >