Comments for Unreal Nature

Comment on Panopticon by Dr. C.

Dr. C. — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:04:01 +0000

Sorry, mammoth (note to self; SPELL CHECK)

Comment on Panopticon by Dr. C.

Dr. C. — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:00:56 +0000

Block that metaphor! I found this abstract interesting but trying to really stretch a point. I note that one usually does not include motion pictures in a discussion of real photography. In my mind, a motion picture would be a far more appropriate comparison to a computer since a photograph is, by essence, a single, static vision. (That may be part of its fascination since life is certainly dynamic. Note to self: think more about this in view of Felix’s serial images.) In the same sense, computers are, almost by definition, dynamic. So, I have trouble putting photographs and computers on the same page. But then, I am not as erudite as Mr. Batchen.

As for the development of the ability to “recognize” something, that is also a fascinating discussion that goes far beyond photography. One is often asked “When do babies begin to see?” Of course we don’t know that with any kind of certainty. It is my opinion that babies begin to see almost immediately since previous experiments (of which I don’t approve, Felix) show that covering of an eye in experimental animal during the first few weeks of life results in decreased development of vision even up to eventual “blindness.” That is, there is sight but there is not recognition. (The neurobiology of vision is something that Felix and I went around and around about two years ago).

It is my opinion, and only a opinion, that a baby is able to see images probably close to what an older child or even adult “sees.” That is, the same number and patterns of actions potentials reach their visual cortex. What they can’t do is, as Batchen says, “recognize” the image. This involves further processing of the signals in other parts of the brain.

But the mystery is how children develop that ability to recognize. Some of it must be inherent. That is, infants don’t “learn” to recognize humans, particularly mothers. I think one could make a strong argument that this has been hard wired in our neurological circuits (and how that could happen evolutionarily must be very complex involving the natural selection of not just neuronal structures but their actual priming). But what about things like numbers, and language? The latter is also, apparently, at least partially hard wired but the differences between Chinese and Inuit is mamouth.

Sorry, veered off the road pertinence.

Comment on Tapping In by unrealnature

unrealnature — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:46:39 +0000

Why didn’t you like it (All or Nothing)?

Comment on Tapping In by Felix

Felix — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 09:41:47 +0000

Connecting Franklin's Hell at the Breech to Leigh's All or Nothing is interesting and illuminating. I've often wondered how dramas such as All or Nothing appear to a foreign (particularly, because of the shared language, US, Canadian or Australasian) audiences ... I suppose you've supplied, through that connection, a significant part of the answer.

Comment on Influential by Felix

Felix — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:41:38 +0000

Tch tch … “nothing to awakening”, in comment #3, should read “nothing so awakening”.

Comment on Influential by Felix

Felix — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:39:52 +0000

I’ve been turning that (comment #2) over in my hands since reading it. There’s nothing to awakening as coming face to face with a view that doesn’t fit with one’s own.

My own ressponce couldn’t be more different … he comes to me as the prickle of rising hairs on the back of the neck, a strange and elusive scent of woodsmoke on the wind, the knowledge that somewhere out there lies the edge, a call which cannot be denied to go forth and experience…

Comment on Infans ex Machina by Felix

Felix — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 07:29:35 +0000

I’ve always loved Photographing the familiar, it was another shaping influence on me … but Some methods is a new delight, which I must chase off and locate in full.

Comment on Influential by unrealnature

unrealnature — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:28:52 +0000

I find Hopper’s pictures restful. Like getting to sit down and have a cold drink after being on my feet all day long. This is true even for his most melancholy pictures. They feel like home; like I’m right where I want to be.

Comment on Influential by Felix

Felix — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:53:56 +0000

As a young person, knee high to a grass hopper, who had learned how to see the world but was still groping around for the language in which to explain what I saw, Hopper was as influential as W Eugene Smith, Henri Cartier Bresson, Duane Michels, Philippe Charbonnier, and the my other heroes of that time.

I deeply enjoyed this post: it brought me a rush of sibling feeling with (Robert) Adams. Thank you.

Comment on Stumped* by Dr. C.

Dr. C. — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:03:41 +0000

Oh, I get it. His poetry is an instance of Grivencolinensinainciusol