Re: [Crm-sig] P62 Homework

2016-07-25 Thread martin 

Dear Simon,

On 25/7/2016 12:57 πμ, Simon Spero wrote:


On Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 3:39 PM martin > wrote:


Dear Franco, All,

Dear Martin, Stephen, all :-)

The property "depicts" was meant to do it via a visual process,
in particular statues and paintings, that by their whole shape and
surface properties represent something. This means, by
surface properties and passive light reflection. 



[all uses of "depict"  or "depicts" that follow should be understood 
as referring to P62, possibly with the second argument unspecified]


This roughly matches my understanding, which makes a couple of 
Stephen's answers confusing; possibly because my questions were unclear.


1)  a picture on an e-ink display does not depict.
This surprised me, as e-ink (and e-paper in general) work by passive 
light reflection, and only require power to change the display.
The intended contrast was with the active OLED display, which emits 
light, and requires continuous power.
Well, the question is again not what means "depicts", but which 
defibnition is useful for cultural-historical reasoning. I'd argue that 
the thing on the screen of the e-paper is accidental to the device. So, 
it is simply inadequate to use a static property for what's at some 
instant on its screen. If it is passive or not, is not

the problem, but that is is not persistent to the object.
Further, an instruction how to draw something, in analogy to a file 
being instructions, cannot be regarded

a depiction in itself, I'd argue.


2) a picture that requires a UV lamp to be seen does depict.
This question was aimed at clarifying whether the image must be 
produced by (subtractive) reflection of incident light, or if 
fluorescence caused absorption of that light was sufficient.
Well, why not, as long as it is an intrinsic property. Many visible 
colorants have fluorescence between visible

frequencies of light.


3) a ball-and-stick model of DNA is  not a depiction of DNA.
Well, here is a question of particulars and universals. I'd argue it 
does depict a structural abstraction of

some DNA molecule.


I am unsure why this is the case; it is a symbolic representation, 
created by human activity, and intended to be decoded using the human 
visual system without the assistance of specific equipment.

If it does not depict, then it is not clear that "Guernica" does.

I assume it is uncontroversial that  "Photograph 51"  depicts DNA?
What sort of photograph is this? Visible light would not reproduce 
molecular dimensions. If it could

it would not depict DNA, but some DNA molecule, a particular one, or not?

Best,

Martin


Simon



--

--
 Dr. Martin Doerr  |  Vox:+30(2810)391625|
 Research Director |  Fax:+30(2810)391638|
   |  Email: mar...@ics.forth.gr |
 |
   Center for Cultural Informatics   |
   Information Systems Laboratory|
Institute of Computer Science|
   Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
 |
   N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton, |
GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece   |
 |
 Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl   |
--

Re: [Crm-sig] P62 Homework

2016-07-25 Thread Stephen Stead 
Simon

1] My bad I did not know the technology was passive.

2] I still think that this is passive.

3] This was me being late night picky! Yes the model depicts something but 
what? Is it the concept of DNA or a particular identifiable instance of DNA or 
…..

 

As to “Photograph 51” I am unfamiliar with this particular example of the 
photographers art but again, when you say DNA what do you mean?

 

Stephen Stead

Tel +44 20 8668 3075 

Mob +44 7802 755 013

E-mail   ste...@paveprime.com

LinkedIn Profile   
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads

 

From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-boun...@ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Simon Spero
Sent: 24 July 2016 22:57
To: martin ; crm-sig@ics.forth.gr
Subject: Re: [Crm-sig] P62 Homework

 

 

On Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 3:39 PM martin mailto:mar...@ics.forth.gr> > wrote:

Dear Franco, All,

Dear Martin, Stephen, all :-) 

 

The property "depicts" was meant to do it via a visual process, in particular 
statues and paintings, that by their whole shape and surface properties 
represent something. This means, by
surface properties and passive light reflection. 

 

[all uses of "depict"  or "depicts" that follow should be understood as 
referring to P62, possibly with the second argument unspecified] 

 

This roughly matches my understanding, which makes a couple of Stephen's 
answers confusing; possibly because my questions were unclear. 

 

1)  a picture on an e-ink display does not depict. 

This surprised me, as e-ink (and e-paper in general) work by passive light 
reflection, and only require power to change the display. 

The intended contrast was with the active OLED display, which emits light, and 
requires continuous power. 

 

2) a picture that requires a UV lamp to be seen does depict. 

This question was aimed at clarifying whether the image must be produced by 
(subtractive) reflection of incident light, or if fluorescence caused 
absorption of that light was sufficient. 

 

3) a ball-and-stick model of DNA is  not a depiction of DNA. 

 

I am unsure why this is the case; it is a symbolic representation, created by 
human activity, and intended to be decoded using the human visual system 
without the assistance of specific equipment. 

If it does not depict, then it is not clear that "Guernica" does.  

 

I assume it is uncontroversial that  "Photograph 51"  depicts DNA? 

 

Simon

Re: [Crm-sig] P62 Homework

2016-07-25 Thread Simon Spero 
On Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 3:39 PM martin  wrote:

> Dear Franco, All,
>
Dear Martin, Stephen, all :-)

The property "depicts" was meant to do it via a visual process,
> in particular statues and paintings, that by their whole shape and surface
> properties represent something. This means, by
> surface properties and passive light reflection.


[all uses of "depict"  or "depicts" that follow should be understood as
referring to P62, possibly with the second argument unspecified]

This roughly matches my understanding, which makes a couple of Stephen's
answers confusing; possibly because my questions were unclear.

1)  a picture on an e-ink display does not depict.
This surprised me, as e-ink (and e-paper in general) work by passive light
reflection, and only require power to change the display.
The intended contrast was with the active OLED display, which emits light,
and requires continuous power.

2) a picture that requires a UV lamp to be seen does depict.
This question was aimed at clarifying whether the image must be produced by
(subtractive) reflection of incident light, or if fluorescence caused
absorption of that light was sufficient.

3) a ball-and-stick model of DNA is  not a depiction of DNA.

I am unsure why this is the case; it is a symbolic representation, created
by human activity, and intended to be decoded using the human visual system
without the assistance of specific equipment.
If it does not depict, then it is not clear that "Guernica" does.

I assume it is uncontroversial that  "Photograph 51"  depicts DNA?

Simon