Re: Aethetics and clear thinking
Brad wrote: Thanks Pal! Too bad you are not in possession of the facts. Ho ho. I don't want to bother the list with boring and irrelevant facts. You ignore a lack of evidence, and you don't know the first thing about the geophsyics involved. Huh? Bad luck with that one. I have PhD in geology. This is not to brag, but to set the record straight. Pål
Re: Aethetics and clear thinking
I'm glad you guys figured it all out. I've been worrying about this all my life. LOL Vic
Re: Aethetics and clear thinking
My usual comment on all these things that the mystical types consider proof a a grand design is If I designed the universe pi would not be an irrational number. In fact there would be no irrational numbers in a rational universe. And, you sure shouldn't need non-numbers to make your number system work. Numbers are a product of the human mind, a useful tool, not a universal truth. Wow, I am agreeing with Don on something. Now there is a wonder. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Dr E D F Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 8:04 AM Subject: Aethetics and clear thinking 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. Don Dr E D F Williams http://personal.inet.fi/cool/don.williams Author's Web Site and Photo Gallery Updated: March 30, 2002
Re: Aethetics and clear thinking
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.
Re: Aethetics and clear thinking
- Original Message - From: Brad Dobo Subject: Re: Aethetics and clear thinking 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. Mathmatics and physics ARE terminology. Nothing more. That they relate to the rules of nature only proves that we invented the rules to describe the relative constants that we see around us. We see, therefore we describe. William Robb
Re: Aethetics and clear thinking
In a message dated 12/29/2002 12:17:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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. Just my .02 cents. As an art major in college in my younger years, I took quite a few art classes from an early age on. Never heard of the rule of thirds in any of my art classes. So that that is a famous art rule that artists have been learning and using for centuries is a myth (sure some may have used it back when, but it is not commonly taught). OTOH, budding artists are encouraged not to be symmetrical, because symmetry indicates a novice (dead centering is what novices tend to do if unchecked) and can be boring. While non-symmetry can add dynamic tension. But again that is not a rule, just an encouragement. And all rules are made to be broken. Doe aka Marnie
Re: Aethetics and clear thinking
Sigh. Wrong again Robb. We see, therefore we SMC. On topic to boot. HAR! Grin. -Lon William Robb wrote: We see, therefore we describe.
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.
Re: Aethetics and clear thinking
What I'm saying Bill, is that the concept existed before we created the concept. You have to open your mind ;-) For all we know, our current terms, laws and understanding are false. No doubt are as people 500 years in the future will tell you. Stick around! :) - Original Message - From: William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 2:09 PM Subject: Re: Aethetics and clear thinking - Original Message - From: Brad Dobo Subject: Re: Aethetics and clear thinking 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. Mathmatics and physics ARE terminology. Nothing more. That they relate to the rules of nature only proves that we invented the rules to describe the relative constants that we see around us. We see, therefore we describe. William Robb
Re: Aethetics and clear thinking
Been there, done that :-) Paul Pat White wrote: When I find a blonde model (a real blonde), I'll take some pictures of the elusive Golden Triangle. Maybe a magazine will even publish them. Pat White
Re: Aethetics and clear thinking
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.
Re: Aethetics and clear thinking
- Original Message - From: Brad Dobo Subject: Re: Aethetics and clear thinking What I'm saying Bill, is that the concept existed before we created the concept. What the concept describes may have existed, but concepts spring from the mind, tenuous as will'o'the'wisps Concepts are an invention of sentience. You have to open your mind ;-) For all we know, our current terms, laws and understanding are false. Certainly, but that is the best we have right now, with our level of ability to conceptualize. William Robb
Re: Aethetics and clear thinking
Hmm...don't want to spend too much time on this, and really don't want to read and respond to replies to me. So, we all have our basic concept of the planet? Earth. Scientists will tell you the earth has a liquid iron core. Interesting. Have they been down there to stick a finger in and say yup, it's liquid iron! As most of you will know, we have many 'layer' apparently. The one we can see is the crust. So far, despite the best efforts of science and technology, going into deep ocean trenches where the crust is at it's minimum, they can't drill through it. So we can't get by the crust, but we can use science to tell us that indeed the inner core is liquid iron? Given our standards, I cannot believe that. I'm not saying it *could* be true, but we can't even get through the thinnest part of the crust. So I have a problem when science tells me what once was theory is now a fact taught (heh, by me) in elementary school? It's all bunk. So much will change in the future. We cannot even understand it. What is also going from theory to fact is 'blackholes'. Collapsed stars. So dense they bend light. It wasn't supposed to be able to be done. Now science tells us it may be. Yet they actually haven't found or see this happen. Load of bunk to me at the moment. If I live to be 1000yrs perhaps I'll change my opinion? More likely than me living to that age is that phenomenon isn't happening. Ok, that's too much writing for me. More to life than sitting here! Brad
RE: Aethetics and clear thinking
Brad Dobo wrote: Hmm...don't want to spend too much time on this, and really don't want to read and respond to replies to me. OK, nice and brief. Sun yellow at the present but when it turns red* it will matter not about anything anymore. Malcolm * Not for a while yet :-)
Re: Aethetics and clear thinking
Ok, some fun, What I'm saying Bill, is that the concept existed before we created the concept. What the concept describes may have existed, but concepts spring from the mind, tenuous as will'o'the'wisps Concepts are an invention of sentience. Right, but I don't see. You have to open your mind ;-) For all we know, our current terms, laws and understanding are false. Certainly, but that is the best we have right now, with our level of ability to conceptualize. I cannot argue with that. I just don't like the sort of 'arrogance' some have of our superiority, we laugh at the past, without considering the future. If we did, we wouldn't laugh. Or progress perhaps? Na. It'll be some 'quack' that gets an idea and proves it -- something we cannot now 'conceptualize'. Paradigm shifts aren't even sufficient to describe future 'science' Who will want to view a photograph when we can create something equal or better on the holodeck? vbg What I always wonder, is if I'm an cynic or a realist? ;-) William Robb Anyhow, methinks of taking out his longest lens and find and photograph some blackholes, getting back to astro-photography :) Or will those darned things suck the light right out of my lens if I do find one? ;-) Surely US Sats. and earth optics aren't better than a good old Pentax lens? Hey, somewhat serious question. Glass is just melted sand :) It's been around, something will eventually replace it (not talking plastics and such) Is there any work or theories. Like no actual material, but magnetics and particle guns and energy charges or something? And more on topic Bill, you use a fast film eh? I won't be using a telescopic either. I just thought there may be 'the' film to do it seriously, as there are so many specialty films out there. I haven't looked at the link Peter posted for me yet. I know jack-squat, was never much of a boyscout, so I'll have to read up! Cynic, realist, chaos theory and quautum physics expert, Brad :)
Re: Aethetics and clear thinking
Is the surface of the sun actually yellow or is that how we perceive it through our atmosphere, or in space are we just seeing yellow flames on top of it? Yup, nice and brief. In the big picture, that's all our species will be, if I believe the science I don't believe :) Same goes for the red sun. Hey, we should hold our meeting in Roswell New Mexico instead of Grandfather mountain! :) j/k - Original Message - From: Malcolm Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 6:53 PM Subject: RE: Aethetics and clear thinking Brad Dobo wrote: Hmm...don't want to spend too much time on this, and really don't want to read and respond to replies to me. OK, nice and brief. Sun yellow at the present but when it turns red* it will matter not about anything anymore. Malcolm * Not for a while yet :-)
