Na, it's really very simple for me. I don't put much stock in scientific
advances. So I won't waste my energy writing on it more. It hasn't done
any better for those that have!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: Aethetics and clear thinking
>
> C'mon, Brad. If you want to contribute to a debate you're going to have
> to do better than that.
>
> chris
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Brad Dobo wrote:
>
> > Still a load of bunk no matter the thought or education behind it.
There is
> > no doubt that mathematics and physics were around long before we ever
even
> > thought of the terminology. Proof of this is everywhere you look.
> >
> > Relation to photography? Nothing and everything.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Mike Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 12:17 PM
> > Subject: Re: Aethetics and clear thinking
> >
> >
> > > Don,
> > > Some very interesting and thoughtful posts. Thanks.
> > >
> > > I agree with those who say there is no "golden mean" in nature.
Finding a
> > > few examples as "proof" is like that famous list of coincidences
between
> > > Lincoln and Kennedy, or the way fortune tellers work ("I see the color
> > > red...the color red has some importance for you..." "Hey, I used to
have a
> > > red car! How did you know that?").
> > >
> > > I can honestly say I have *never* paid the slightest attention to any
of
> > the
> > > so-called "rules" of composition. Looking at pictures, the "rule of
> > thirds"
> > > is no more valid than the "rule of fourths" or the "rule of fifths" or
any
> > > other fraction. For that matter, there are thousands of interesting
> > pictures
> > > with the subject smack dab in the middle of the frame. And if pressed,
I
> > > could probably come up with several new "rules" which could be found
to be
> > > applicable to a number of successful and well-known photographs.
> > >
> > > If anything, oversimplified deconstruction of "composition" (strictly
> > > speaking, photographers don't compose) keeps people from seeing. And
if
> > > anyone is beset by any of these "rules" floating about in their heads,
I
> > > would probably counsel them to get out and try their hardest to
violate
> > > them.
> > >
> > > --Mike
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >> Cause and Effect
> > > >>
> > > >> There is something about the 'Golden Section', the 'Golden
Triangle',
> > the
> > > >> 'Golden Proportions' or 'Rule of Thirds' or any other name one
cares to
> > > >> choose for these elusive photographic or pictorial qualities, that
is
> > > >> unconducive to clear thinking. Pentax users, amongst the most
> > intelligent of
> > > >> photographers, if only for their choice of lenses, are no better at
> > sorting
> > > >> it out than anyone else. Why? Because Nature does not obey any
> > mathematical
> > > >> rules.
> > > >>
> > > >> Numbers mean nothing to a virus particle (virion) or a crystal of
gold,
> > or
> > > >> the amorphous aggregation of crystals found in steel, or the bones
of
> > my
> > > >> leg. The arrangement of the capsomers that form the envelope of an
> > > >> icosahedral virion for example, is not such because of numbers, but
> > because
> > > >> of the nature of the different capsomers themselves. Some are
> > pentagonal
> > > >> others hexagonal. They fit together neatly. The shape is determined
by
> > their
> > > >> own sub-units and how they tend to join and the shape of these are
in
> > turn
> > > >> determined by genetic information. They are built upon genetic
> > templates
> > > >> and their structure is determined by either RNA or DNA which
carries
> > the
> > > >> 'blueprint' for construction. We can now draw beautiful diagrams of
how
> > > >> these all fit together and write mathematical formulae that predict
how
> > this
> > > >> comes about. Geodesic domes and Virus particles are similar in
> > construction.
> > > >> Forgive me for being simplistic here.
> > > >>
> > > >> Now along comes a nutty Creationist who say's, "See how even the
humble
> > > >> viruses obey God's Mathematical Laws of Nature?" He sits down and
> > starts to
> > > >> calculate. This is how it usually starts. Numbers can ~only~ be
used to
> > > >> describe what happens in nature, not to determine it: But even then
> > only up
> > > >> to a point. In some cases with great accuracy, in others only
> > approximately,
> > > >> most times not at all.
> > > >>
> > > >> To say that there is a mathematical rule for beautiful composition
is
> > like
> > > >> making a rule for my behaviour from the information (usually
erroneous)
> > that
> > > >> when I was born the planets were arranged in a particular way.
Because
> > of
> > > >> this fortunate, or unfortunate coincidence, I must needs do, or
not,
> > this or
> > > >> that, on certain days of the week, month or year because my
existence
> > and
> > > >> the course of my life will forever be determined by this load of
crap.
> > > >>
> > > >> Make your pictures look good and forget about 'Golden' anything.
You
> > could
> > > >> spend a lifetime measuring masterpieces in museums and galleries
around
> > the
> > > >> world and constructing diagrams from them ... but it will only lead
you
> > back
> > > >> to square one.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
