And it was nice! The beach is almost always nice, no matter the weather - or maybe it gets nicer the more weather there is? I'll have to think a little about that.
In the meantime I'm going to get all philosophical. Or at least I'm going to look at philosophic photography. I googled “Photo philosophy” just for fun and got close to twenty thousand results.
Some of the blogs pertaining to be photo philosophical, was nothing of the sort. Instead they were superfluous, rather boring and art wannabe-like. Thankfully in between there was gold dew to be shaken out of the web, like Shutterfinger's good posts.
Photo philosophy ... There is an aesthetic branch of philosophy, which date back to Plato and which have the giant Immanuel Kant as it's utter most important modern contributor. Check out his work "Critique of Judgment" if you want to know more.
- And just because I read about it the other day, I happen to know that Susan Sontag wrote five or so essays on photography that came as a book "On photography" in 1977. When you follow the link to the book you find that others have taken the subject up too, Scott Walden and Vilém Flusser for instance.
Why bother to read books about photography, when I could just take the camera, go out there and practice and get better as I click? It seems like the photography hobbyist is "supposed" to click herself into better photos, a hands on-attitude, learning by doing. It might be just as sensible with a brains on-approach, where I learn by studying and reading. Even though, of course, it's not as much fun as click-click-click all the time.
The way I look at motives and situations around me is influenced by what's on top of my head (and actually at the back of my head too) at any given time. To think that I'm not influenced by external impulses, would be overconfident - to say the least. That's my second reason to read about photography, to have it with me as a thought as I go clickety-click around & about.
If rather than going to the books, you'd like to stay on the Internet and read here, maybe discuss deeper things with regard to photography, maybe it's time to join a forum like Photo.net?
And if you'd like to explore the subject on your own, without discussuon, why don't start by visiting Steve Pyke's portraits of philosophers here?
I'm going to round this post of by getting a little philosophical about photography as a revelation, as a "peeping" business, as a way of invading peoples personal life by catching them off guard or in the act - and keeping them there.
Yesterday I found this note in a small wood next to a children's school.
It says: "To Sanna! Thousand thanks for the letter. I like you very much. What will you do after school today? I'm going to a party. Greetings Merete"
Now without the photo of the note, you'd have to take my word for it's existence. Now all you have to question is it's authenticity - and my translation of the Norwegian text. With Google translate the last bit should be easy peasy to verify.
Seeing the note, picking it up, reading it - it all gave me a feeling of intrusion into someplace secret. But taking the photo was the biggest step, the greatest breach of privacy this note could possibly suffer. Taking the photo transformed the note to a photo of a note, made the private message a photo object, a viewer's thing, unpersonal, public and ... kind of ... I don't know ... ridiculed?
Is it unetical to take a photo of this personal note and post it on the Internet? Is it wrong of me? I intend no harm, have no agenda to make fun of the sender or intended receiver of the note. I just happened upon the note, picked it up and decided to keep it because no one else seemed to want to take care of it. But maybe taking it's picture is far from taking care of it, maybe putting it back between the two tree trunks would be a better act, a nobler adventure.
Some equal consideration may be the wont of many a photo taken, do you agree?
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar