|
Forum: Photographic Technique
10-06-2010, 05:21 AM
|
| |
Back in the day was a pop-psych book called GAMES PEOPLE PLAY, about head-trips and other human interactions. One of those games was called GENERAL MOTORS, generally a guy thing about bragging about one's car. MY CADDY IS BIGGER THAN YOUR MAZDA, etc. (Notice the sexual innuendo there?) IMHO we see that reflected in many gear discussions: MY DA*300 IS BIGGER / BETTER THAN YOUR WIMPY LITTLE FA100-300, etc.
That's one factor. Another is that gear is easier to discuss than are aesthetics. Gear is all very quantifiable, easy to spreadsheet, and many of us can run the factoids out from head to keyboard without much introspection. Even IQ is measurable, quantifiable, reifiable (able to be turned into a thing). And we can readily find words that rather accurately describe all the gear and its qualities.
Aesthetics are something else. This is a discussion forum; but how many of us have been well educated in the history and theory of art and photography, and in critical analysis? How can we discuss the implications of various possible presentations of Rupert's find squirrel portrait above? Slight tweaking can change the tone to ominous or comedic or revelatory or historic.
How many of us exploit the old directive, "f/8 and be there", to capture unfolding drama or farce? A photography professor insisted (and I agree) that art does not reside in pixel counts, is not dependent upon resolution. As I've noted before, some of the most famous and influential photos in history are blurry blobs that yet manage to clearly convey meaning. But we find it much easier to talk about noise levels than about emotional impact. Bother.
|
