Re: A NEW DEBATE

In a message dated 1/13/02 4:12:12 PM Central Standard Time,
holtsg@duke.usask.ca writes:

<< I use pinhole camera because it "reinterprets" reality. I usually use
 cameras that introduce at least some distortion and some cameras that
 distort a great deal.
 
 I am struck by the way that the camera "sees" the world in a substantially
 different manner than I do. The image is a real image, the way the camera
 saw it, not a second generation darkroom based or computer based
 alteration of an image. Its just not the way I see the same situation.
>>
I would agree with Gordons statement here in part..... but then i ask my self
, what is the reality, ? is it my perception ?Is the "reality" really just a
series of atoms just floating around to "give the perception of reality," ie
a series of dots , be it silver, inkjet, or some other process used to
provide us with a print and/or representation of that object known as the
"artifact ". And what of the subject matter that a pinhole camera is pointed
at and film exposed ? Isnt that barn or gravestone, or what ever just a mass
of atoms once again, and while there is a "translation ' of that barn being a
mass of atoms, the sheet of film a mass of atoms, the camera itself a mass
of atoms, the paper being another mass and so on, until we reach the "final
translation " of artifact,or representation of that barn , etc.. and
finally arrive at some sort of aesthetic .

As for me, to paraphrase and adopt/steal something I once heard or read, I
simply photograph to see what something 3 dimensional looks like translated
into 2 dimensional , and am driven by that curiousity .The tools (cameras )
are just that, tools no more, no less , the same holds true for me, in terms
of procedures /processes to express/ arrive at the "final translation " or
artifact .which I deem aesthetically pleasing to my eye,or not ..
Received on Sun Jan 13 19:41:36 2002