Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/05/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]At 07:27 PM 5/6/97 -0400, you wrote: > >Jim, do you really believe this hooey, or are you just kind of >having fun with us here? > >-Patrick > I personally believe there are vast differences between the Eastern & Western cultures. It is indeed possible that Bokeh is a subtlety that can have roots in the Japanese culture. Perhaps a spacial way of viewing design and composition. You have to admit that there is a big difference between French, German, Scandinavian, American, and Japanese designs. It is part of each culture's fabric. The Japanese have evolved a way of (I know what I want to say but don't know how to say it!) inner discipline that puts importance in areas that are normally not important to us. I believe that each culture and associated language has experiences, meanings, disciplines, etc. that another cultures may have trouble understanding. Does the fact that the Japanese symbols Bo Ke have no equivalent in English (and perhaps other languages) mean anything? When is the last time you heard of a Westerner committing hara-kiri (<italic>seppuku</italic>) to save face. Killing yourself because you dishonored your family is totally un-thinkable to Western culture. Of course there are always ripples in the pond. Visit Japan town in any large city. Look at the art, the photographs, etc. It clearly is different than that which western cultures produce. Like anything, Bokeh has been overly analyzed. It probably started as a way of describing and using non-imaging form in design and composition. Through heated discussion, over the years, Bokeh has probably been blown way out of proportion. The fact that they discuss it in Japanese lens tests states that they are *attempting* to analyze it. They even classify "types" of Bokeh. To me, that in itself defeats its meaning. At this point, IMHO, Bokeh has lost what it was supposed to be. Back way up in time, and I believe Bokeh was an element that knowingly participated in Japanese composition. It has now become a point of argument. "Leica glow" may be a manifestation of Bokeh. Or vice-versa. When I think about "Leica glow", I immediately think about the photograph by Bill Pierce, on page 205 of the "Leica Manual, 15th Edition." For some reason, this is more of an emotion to me than a photograph. Everything participates. The child's face and eyes. The mother's hug. And the very important smooth out of focus background. It's simply riveting! This, <bold>to me</bold>, is "Leica Glow." Perhaps "Bokeh" makes it possible. Perhaps it is simply the photographer and his inherent abilities. I asked my wife what she thought about this photograph. She said "Oh, it's nice, nothing special." I simply do not know. I suspect everyone, depending upon their upbringing, their outlook on life, past experiences, age, demeanor, etc, will have a different idea of what Bokeh is... or isn't. <bold>Perhaps it is all hooey</bold>. But just because <bold>you</bold> cannot see something, doesn't mean it is not there. Every single perception= <bold>you</bold> have, is manifested only in <bold>your</bold> mind. Your= mind is developed while being raised in a particular culture. There is= indeed a link between your culture and your perception. I will not attempt= to answer if Bokeh even exists or how an individual can perceive it. This= could become a topic without end. No two people ever agreeing. You've just= read my views on the whole matter. And I believe in what I said. No hooey. Jim PS... I'm not going to continue any farther with any part of this thread. So= don't flame me about cultures, Leica glow, seppuku, or any of this. I had= to answer Patrick with my honest personal views. Thanks for the bandwidth R= oger.