on 1/20/02 5:06 PM, andrew fildes at afildes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Thinking always was sexy, hey?
> Perhaps we should get a philosophy sub-group going here to counter the bike
> and battery nuts? For instance, is photography part of a materialist's
> search for some form of residual immortality? Proof of existence?
> Sigh.
> AndrewF
>
The professional shoots pictures at the behest of someone else, who is
making a statement or using the image to influence someone's decisions (I am
thinking here of advertising pictures, etc...) The amateur shoots his
pictures to make an artistic statement (I am thinking of the 'serious
amateur' photographer here). The great majority of pictures are taken by the
casual shooter, who is making the statement "This is what Aunt Edna looked
like on Christmas 2001" which they are shouting down the hallway of the
future a record of existence and a life that will endure after they are
gone. Like the pictures of our ancestors and the strangers we see in
daguerrotypes (sp?) from 100 years ago -- a statement that at one time they
*existed* and this is who they were (or at least what they looked like).
Heavy, dude.
--
Jim Brokaw
OM-1's, -2's, -4's, (no -3's yet) and no OM-oney...
If a picture is taken and no one sees it, does the subject really exist...?
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|