Re: [Leica] Two cultures

[john <bosjohn@mediaone.net>]

Erwin Puts wrote:
> 
> I hardly ever comment on persons being rude and/or narrow-minded on this
> list. I do assume that facts speak for themselves and if not it is no use
> trying to bring some sense and sensibility into the discussion. If Jim Brick
> however feels offended I have to make an exception.
> I am amazed that one or two individuals on this list, by a stubborn refusal
> to accept that  individuals who hold a  view different from their own, might
> have some valuable insights, can upset a man like Jim. He at least tries to
> argue with facts and with passion but he can clearly distinguish between the
> two. We have since the earliest of times two cultures: one is committed to
> find the truth by reasoning and fact finding disregarding ones own ideas,
> and the world of science is full of people who, confronted by facts, had to
> restate theories and revise opinions. And they gladly did, because the
> search for truth is above the personal conviction. The other culture is the
> world of superstition and believe. We all know what this amounts to: from
> witch hunting to Mc Carthy groups of individuals have tried to suppress the
> free flow of facts and ideas, because they did not like the content. No
> proof ever was needed, just the simple rule, that person A does not want to
> hear what person B has to say and so B is suspect and considered insulting
> to person A.
> I am not for or against digital printing and I ams ure neither is Jim What
> we try to establish is ONE: to find the best output medium for our Leica
> pictures not by repeating mantras but by solid research and TWO to express
> our awe and enthusiasm for a medium that delivers outstanding quality, not
> because it is steeped in history but because it has timeless inherent image
> qualities, that you may learn to love to master.
> If some person finds the expression of such enthusiasm and the study of its
> properties an insult to his views, we should reflect for a moment on the
> roots for this 'insult'.
> The LUG, unfortunately always follows this predictable pattern. There is an
> interesting and valuable topic, then one or a few of the participants in the
> discussion have to leave the level of logical reasoning and fact finding and
> feel inclined to do a fair share of person-bashing.
> A public discussion is as good as the quality of its participants. Pity that
> for some, the goal of an exchange of opinions is not fact finding, but the
> domination of their own beliefs.
> 
> Erwin
I am not sure that your two defined groups are mutually exclusive. I am not
even convinced they exist. Certainly vitriol is not the exclusive property of
the superstitious. When examining tangible hardware, real software and
measurable process, the scientific method works wonders in finding truth, or
at least truth for the present. However, it is a crude and useless tool in
discussions of feelings, art, meaning, passion etc. Your scientific method can
and will answer how a photo was made, but can never answer why it was made and
what it means to you or me.  

The science of photography is vital and important to all our photographic
lives, so too is the art of photography. Without the science, with out the
scientist like yourself, we would be unable to create any art through
photography.  But science is not the end of the story, rather the beginning.
After we make the tools and define the process we must understand something
about the art. We need different methods to understand art, something beyond
the rule of thirds and don't center the subject. It is not enough to say that
"At present the silver based process is superior for the following measurable
reasons" (My words).  People will make art with what ever is at hand. If that
means using a Leica camera and making digital prints we will do it. not
because of a superior performance or better resolution, but because it is there.
John Shick