Kirk wrote:
>The Sports Illustrated photographers are the best in
>the world. I went to the BillFrakes.com site and emailed
>one of the two photographers who are credited with
>the photo. Here is what Mr. Frakes said:
>"we built a camera specifically to take that image, it is not the type of
>camera used by the officials."
>This doesn't quite answer the question about how they took the image.
>It does answer the question about whether they stole the Finish Lynx
image.
It also begs the question of "why?"
Isn't this somewhat like taking a silicon wafer, etching some lines in it
to make it look like a microchip, and then calling it art?
Of course, in that case, you're at least probably making some artistic
statement about how microchips are perceived, and the transformation of an
object through the artists intent, or whatever.
But here, since most of the judges don't know what "microchips" look like,
you're just going to all the trouble of screwing around with silicon and
metal to show people that it can be done. And then showing it to a bunch
of folks who have never seen a microchip, and who are therefore highly
impressed at the intricate tracings and the Mondrian-eque/Bauhaus type
patters that the lines make, without having any idea that machines are
stamping these things out by the millions worldwide.
Now, before I beat this one up too bad, here is the SI photo:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/ap/20010209/sp/world_press_photo_c1s.html
and while I can't find the photo timer from the Olympics, here is the
Finishlynx photo from the USOT Women's 100:
http://www.cyberscoreboard.com/images/27420/27420-3-21.jpg
Anyone want to tell me why the former is aesthetically superior to the
latter? (I actually prefer the resoution on the Finishlynx Photo, but
that's just me...)
Or why it's a wonderful thing that Misters Frakes and Callow should be
celebrated for going to the trouble to find another way to produce
something that looks like automatic timing photos? Except, like the fake
microchip, their photos are divorced from the basic functionality and
utility that the real thing provides.
Which, of course, is an artistic statement unto itself, but only if the
observer is aware of the existence and mass production of the real thing.
Phil
