"The specific capacity to abstract planes form the space-time "out there," and to re-project this abstraction back "out there" might be called "imagination." It is the capacity to produce and decipher images, the capacity to codify phenomena in two-dimensional symbols, and then to decode such symbols."
I really appreciate this statement. Some people believe it to be difficult to create something abstract in a 2-D space. That it is easier to create something in that sense in the 3-D world. I do believe it poses as being more difficult, but definitely not impossible. I love the idea of imagination as the tool to the abstraction and the deciphering of the code of 2-D language. It is then that linear writing is spoken of as "...transcoded the circular time of magic into the linear time of history." There then becomes a reason for the abstraction and a way to describe it. All in the round circular formation of the world. "When writing was invented, a new capacity came into being: "conceptualization."" Conceptualization is the foundation for most fine art, it is the very essence of why we do what we do. I myself find the formation of conceptualization with the written word, to be more difficult. I can art for days, but describing the reason for that art in words, on paper is the hardest!
"Techni-cal images, for their part, are third-degree abstractions; they are abstracted from the concrete world. Again, historical-ly, traditional images may be called "pre-historical," while technical images ay be called "post-historical,".
The technical images is created through an apparatus and at that point is considered, not a first person representation of what was created. That through the apparatus, another point of interest is involved. I, myself view the "apparatus" or camera I use as a tool, not as another point of inference for the construction of the design of my image. "... as in fingerprints where the meaning (the finger) is the cause and the image (the print) is the effect." Cause and effect is very obvious in this chapter. The apparatus is the cause for the final product. I disagree.
"Technical images were meant, first, to re-introduce images into daily life; second, to render hermetic texts imaginable;and third, to render visible the subliminal magic inherent in cheap texts... they were meant simultaneously to be "beautiful," "true," and "good... In face, however, technical images do not function in that way."
The apparatus is viewed as "to prepare", the thing that you prepare your photos with. It is then delved into as a cultural object, the thing people can consume. The apparatus is the tool that extends from the body and becomes part of the body. Then you have to question is it the apparatus or the person with the extension that is taking and image. All images would be redundant if it were not for those using the tool. "Basically, the photography- in the strictest sense meant here- tries to establish situations such as have never existed before.
No comments:
Post a Comment