On 12/12/2013 7:04 AM, Chris Barker wrote:
> I remember loads of places and people because I have photographed them.
On 12/12/2013 8:45 AM, Piers Hemy wrote:
> And my photographs remind me of many places about which I had forgotten,
> before re-visiting the photo.
On 12/12/2013 6:53 AM, Bob Whitmire wrote:
> For those of a more serious amateur or professional bent, I would argue with
> the conclusion. Anecdotally (down, Andrew! Down!), my experience has been
> that I tend to look very carefully at something before I photograph it.
> Looking at the photograph triggers a full sensory recollection of the object
> or spot.
>
> For those of a more happy-snappy persuasion, the research seems credible.
Another piece of silliness that, at least as reported, doesn't examine it's
technique and assumptions very closely.
Another way to put it is that the results are valid only for one sort of
people, under one, strictly limited circumstance.
I sent this a bit ago to someone off list:
-----------------------------------------
"I do know one thing about myself and photography. If I'm out without a camera,
I tend to lose attention to my
surroundings. I don't run into things, but I tend to 'see' what's around me
less than I would like to. Much of it has to
do with getting lost in my head.
In any case, I find that a camera in my hand leads me to be always looking at
what's around me. Being in touch with my
surroundings, in the moment, is good for me. It delights me when I'm out with
Carol and/or others and surprise them with
images of things they didn't even notice when they were right there.
Perhaps I'm wrong, perhaps I could learn to notice these thing without a camera
to keep me looking (Might I have
already?), and just be grateful to them for showing me how to see. But for now,
I'm happy to carry cameras and let them
be my crutch. Besides, others appear to get enjoyment out of my photography -
and I still do, too. "
-----------------------------------------
I have fairly often done just what this experiment entailed, taken pictures of
things in museums.
One of the generalizations from the study is not true of me. I do look at the
images I've captured in museums, more than
once, often quite some time apart. I find a synergistic relationship.
Sometimes, I wander through shots from years ago, only to find something(s)
about which I had forgotten. Other times, I
recall something unclearly, and can go back to see what it really looked like.
It's sometimes a joy to be able to
re-enjoy something I may never see in person again.
In a conversation this last weekend, my brother brought up the one may build up
a 3D surface using oil paints. This
brought up a very clear memory of the very thick, complex build-up of oil paint
in the corner of a Van Gogh in the Met.
But how much was memory of the viewing in which I noticed this detail, and how
much was memory of the much more recent
viewing of the close-up I took at the time? Then again, what about the second
viewing in person, while aware of the
first viewing and the original close-up? :-)
I find it annoying when an exhibit prohibits photography, but doesn't have a
catalog available. I wish I'd snuck a
couple more shots of one, in particular, where recalling some early photographs
on display seems important to me, but I
know my memory not to be perfect.
Sometimes, I remember one, which reminds me of the other, sometimes the reverse.
I think it's a silly and ultimately meaningless experiment.
Moose D'Opinion
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|