photographers have to see the world the same way that the camera is seeing it, the way it is, its shape and color not its shape color and ego, the way most people see objects is ; they dont see just the object they see the ego of it. remember how your computer looked when you first bought it, before you looked at free porn with it, well see it the way you saw it before you looked at porn on it, when it was new, because it still looks like new, unless you drink cola, but either way it will look more real.
…
what?
Remember, GH smokes pot. Hehe. I had to.
What GalacticHeart is trying to say is, without looking at something abstractly it’s easier to be seen. Right GH?
Whats soo wrong with pot? And don’t say its bad soliloquy cause u kno what ill come back with…
But im going to have to be with CI on this one.
Whaa???
GalacticHeart is a fine example of what’s wrong with pot. 
what im saying is dont see a tree as a tree, see it as shapes colors and smells…if you look at a tree thinkling…'tree"…, then you will see a cloudy picture of a tree , that picture that you think is a representation of reality, is realy a combination of whats there blended in with what you expect to be there, so your not seein the tree your seeing a tree, but not me im seeing A tree. speaking of pot im going to. p.s. where the geniuses at?
i’ve taken many a picture that has been described as artistic (although i think i suck)
(of course that’s more of a self-esteem issue)
but i don’t see things the way you’re talking about. i just look at something and think that would be a cool picture so i get my camera and photograph it.
If I look at my computer in real life, and it is turned off, I see it with an imagination of the Log On page.
If I see a photo of it in exactly the same way, I don’t see an imagination of the Log On screen.
So this thread for me does make sense.
Photography is a weird art form. You know that whatever has been photographed was really there and did look like that. But what you are looking at is an image, the thing is absent, not there.
With paintings you expect to be fooled, with cinema you downright hope for it, with photography you are suspended in a tension between presence and absence, unsure of whether you’ve been fooled or not.
which leads us to the interesting dilemna…
is a photograph of a photograph the “proof” of the absence of an absence?
do you still “know” it was really there? and what exactly was “it”?
and why aren’t memories mere photographs catalouged in the mind?
blink…
-Imp
1/ You mean, a photograph of a photograph including the borders, and maybe lying on a table. Then yes, it seems even more abstract.
2/ Because we remember a kind of Jpeg version, compressed. The picture uses information to be rebuilt. I think that dreams are removing unused material, and then defragmenting the remaining materials. The dreams that we see are the tests that are performed on the pictures as they are moved into different memory locations. It is not good to be woken up each morning by a loud sound during a dream, because your moved information has not been fully tested yet.
If you dream about…say an apple. The apple has moved into a new slot. Whatever was there before has been removed. You might try to guess what was there, but you will find it extremely hard being as you have never used the information before. Most of this information is useless anyway. A lot of it is memories of reflections on glass, or simple just reflections in your environment. If you have a bad memory for names, or faces, then they are slightly damaged when you were woken during a dream…
This is part of Pinchoism.
Pinchoism is my personal world.
You do not have to accept it as your personal world.
it’s always good to have imp around to confuse everyone into possibly derailing a thread
photography you say… interesting point regarding that is this: remember wittgensteins point that “no image fixes it’s own interpertation” (paraphrased) well if you show people who have never seen photographs before them they can’t see the resemblance between the picture and the person (for example the person is much thicker than the photograph). Photographs as a window therefore is a very much learnt thing.
Children probably accept them. Adults have already decided how things should look…
Remember in the old cinemas, people used to duck out of the way of approaching trains on the screen…
Children do not seem to duck out of the way however, and TV is new to them.
everyone should be looking at reality as though they were looking at a fine art painting, examining the shadows, the textures the negative space ect. artists are able to see threw the fixed image and see raw reality, in present time. pincho paxton thats a very intresting point you bring up, maybe kids dont duck because the collective conciousness is board with t.v…p.s. just out of curiosity how many people on this thread feel like from time to time they can see raw clear reality, vrs a cloudy memory composite. im starting to get to the point where i can see objects objectivly, to see the object, not; to see the objects ego, mixed with the actual object. if i had a friend on this message board i would say bang bang algebra insert freind here bang algebra your math , then i would say to my freind “take the mike”.