Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/07/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Jeffrey, your mention of music makes me compare it to photography. By comparison with music, photography seems to lack an adequate language to describe it to others (a shared or even common language). In music, you can say, "oh Pat Martino just played a really outside Dm7b5 arpeggio over an Abdom7" (just making this up, of course). And someone who speaks the same language with some degree of proficiency goes, "Oh, that is a cool sound." Or "This Bill Buford tune is in 11/8 time. Tap it out for yourself, it's cool." What's the equivalent in photography? We have stuff like the rule of 3rds, but that isn't nearly adequate to describe "the geometry" in HCB's photos. We would want a language sufficient to describe it in a way as to help others see it (the geometry of HCB's pics, just for example). And maybe even sometimes, we want others to see things in an appreciative manner, thus a language that can describe normative judgements. You know, like today we can say things like "very sharp" or "perfect focus on the eyes", but I don't think the language we have today can express what makes a good photograph a good photograph. So what about painting? I know little of painting, but I imagine that hundreds/thousands of years of pedagogy must have come up with some kind structure for descriptive language and critical judgement or evaluation - I'd imagine more than one. Scott Jeffery Smith wrote: >Whenever I have posed questions such as this on the LUG, I get sarcastic and >condescending ridicule from those who feel they have nothing new to learn. >So I know what I am setting myself up for here. > >I think you have hit the nail on the head. There are some things that, with >more exposure, I still cannot stand (rap music rings a bell here). I never >had much appreciation for blues or jazz until I decided to learn about both. >When I first heard Mahler in 1968, I thought it was just too dissonant. >Today, I wonder how I could have felt that way. When I first looked at >Eggleston's color images, they seemed like 1950's color snapshots to me. But >after studying them a bit more, I grew to appreciate them. In short, I tend >not to like the unfamiliar, but warm up to it with repeated exposure. I have >to admit that I used to be that way with people. If I got a bad first >impression, I had trouble shaking it. But today I find myself liking people >at work who are, to others, insufferable. > >I have tried Bruckner from time to time, and still don't like him. When >someone told me to think of him as Richard Wagner writing a symphony, I >liked him better, but not that much. Just better. > >Jeffery Smith >New Orleans, LA >http://www.400tx.com >http://400tx.blogspot.com/ > > > > > -- Pics @ http://www.adrenaline.com/snaps Leica M6TTL, Bessa R, Nikon FM3a, Nikon D70, Rollei AFM35 (Jihad Sigint NSA FBI Patriot Act)