In a message dated 1/13/02 4:12:12 PM Central Standard Time, hol...@duke.usask.ca writes:
<< I use pinhole camera because it "reinterprets" reality. I usually use cameras that introduce at least some distortion and some cameras that distort a great deal. I am struck by the way that the camera "sees" the world in a substantially different manner than I do. The image is a real image, the way the camera saw it, not a second generation darkroom based or computer based alteration of an image. Its just not the way I see the same situation. >> I would agree with Gordons statement here in part..... but then i ask my self , what is the reality, ? is it my perception ?Is the "reality" really just a series of atoms just floating around to "give the perception of reality," ie a series of dots , be it silver, inkjet, or some other process used to provide us with a print and/or representation of that object known as the "artifact ". And what of the subject matter that a pinhole camera is pointed at and film exposed ? Isnt that barn or gravestone, or what ever just a mass of atoms once again, and while there is a "translation ' of that barn being a mass of atoms, the sheet of film a mass of atoms, the camera itself a mass of atoms, the paper being another mass and so on, until we reach the "final translation " of artifact,or representation of that barn , etc.. and finally arrive at some sort of aesthetic . As for me, to paraphrase and adopt/steal something I once heard or read, I simply photograph to see what something 3 dimensional looks like translated into 2 dimensional , and am driven by that curiousity .The tools (cameras ) are just that, tools no more, no less , the same holds true for me, in terms of procedures /processes to express/ arrive at the "final translation " or artifact .which I deem aesthetically pleasing to my eye,or not ..
