>Meta-thinking is good for the soul. It provides the "first principles" and
>Weltansicht much as Euclid did with his axioms for [Euclidean]
>Geometry. Everything else flows from them through Aristotelian deductive
>reasoning. It is *very* important to remember the initial "axioms" are
>*induced* and **not** *deduced* [see Thomas Aquinas' taxonomy of
>"truth"]. Hence, axioms are *always* questionable and debatable.
Weltansicht and Euclid in one sentence - well done! If axioms are in
themselves debateable, then you are demanding proof which in its turn
requires a preceding logical process. The problem is that you can then
never prove anything because each proof is built on a preceding proof and
so on retrospectively ad infinitum - the main problem with primitive
skepticism. Whatever you build, you build on sand unless you have some a
priori. As I remember, Aristotle demanded that we accept that the real
world exists as we experience it, in contradiction to Plato, in order that
he could move forward.
>Some Brain Food:
>-------------------------------------
>John's Three Photographic Axioms:
>
>1. The "Science" is about light. Film doesn't record subjects or objects,
>it only records light and *only* light [photons within a wavelength band or
>range]. Understanding light, how it behaves, including optics and how film
>responds to it is The Science.
Which is useful in a functional way but does little to explain what the
hell it is really all about in any deep sense.
>2. The "Art" is about *making* versus *taking* photographs. This requires
>visualizing what the image will be before the shutter is opened. The
>process rarely requires hours of deep cogitation; it can be near
>instantaneous. Visualizing does require being able to articulate *why* the
>photograph is being made. Many times that is also relatively simple. If
>the "Why" can be articulated, visualization for the image flows, and that
>determines the "How" [method to make it].
But can you actually train someone to 'see' a photograph and is there a
relationship between photography as art and photography as record. Thinking
here of the differences between a social and an aesthetic response - are
they equally valid and do they overlap? Just bought a nice copy of Avedon's
'In the American West' - 10"x8" portraits of working people in West Texas -
because it moved me. Rips the heart but is it art? Friend and family can't
work out why I'd spend that much (US$70ish) on a book of pictures of mostly
ugly people. Nice scene in the otherwise ordinary film 'The Truth about
Cats and Dogs' where the blonde can't see the point of the male lead's art
photos while the dowdy smart girl understands immediately - can you
visualise that which you are culturally or intellectually blocked from
seeing?
>3. Creating photographs (composition) is a "subtractive"
>process. Painting is "additive" beginning with a blank canvas to which the
>painter adds the visualized image. OTOH the photographer begins with all
>of reality, and subtracts those visual elements that do not (and cannot)
>contribute to the image and its subject material. Part of this is
>understanding how to use light in creating and communicating a 3-D visual
>universe using a 2-D medium, and the general cause->effect releationships
>humans have to visual stimuli (e.g. brighter/lighter colors advance and
>duller/darker colors recede).
This is being seriously challenged by digital - it is now possible to
construct an image and use the camera merely as a device to collect
components. I suspect that the future of art photography is not in the
recording of reality but the reordering and assembling of new realities - a
genuinely additive process. I'm having a ball with Photoshop!
>Aristotle's four aitiai have been most helpful to me in determining the
>aspects of the subject material to "celebrate" and the ones to "conceal"
>[from his Physics, Book II, Chapter 3]. Aitiai translates roughly to
>"causes" which can be used to describe the physical objects we observe:
>
> a. "Material cause;" what the object is made of.
> b. "Formal cause;" its structure, shape and form; what it looks like.
> c. "Efficient cause;" a poor translation to English because it relates
> to the object's beginning; how it came to be (or how it was built);
> the "actions" that created it or "context" that created a need for
> it and prompted its creation.
> d. "Final cause;" (Greek "telos"); an object's "purpose" or "end" or
> "goal" and explains what it does or intends to do, or how it
> interacts with its environment.
>
>The first two aitiai do not require anything but the object itself; the
>third can usually be determined from the object itself, but sometimes not
>and can require knowing the environment in which it was created. The
>fourth requires the object's current context or environment. Without an
>environment in which to interact, there is no telos! An image can express
>one or more of the aitiai but should only contain those needed for the "Why."
>-------------------
>
>-- John
Nature, form, process and purpose. Context and telos are what I'm
struggling with. Art always has trouble with a teleology, I think. Of
course, one can start to discuss the construction and use of a fine camera
as art within itself - it has a clearer telos at least and that may account
for our fascination with it.
Now, that raises the tone around here I think!
AndrewF
< 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 >
|