"fuzzy", I insist, Chris. The author's explanation is packed with
abstract nouns, and it lacks concretes, specifics, and examples. His
theory is seductive, and/but what I want is simple, see-able,
graspable, examples of his ideas.
What I want from you is your showing me how his notions manifest
themselves in your own work. I can then better envision their
manifestation in my own twinnings of text and drawings or photos. His
theory's intriguing, and I wonder if or how experiencers' perceptions
might be altered, as he is suggesting.
Best,
Judy
2010/1/10 Chris Jones <[log in to unmask]>
>
> On Sun, 2010-01-10 at 05:28 -0500, Judy Prince wrote:
> > Will have a look at the article, am intrigued, but loathe fuzzy
> > writing such as that quoted below.
>
> I have only skimmed, but the writing rather then fuzzy is technically
> very precise. To work in media arts as a successful artist there is no
> easy way and since I am working with imaginative text and fictional
> poetic forms which disconnect from any referent or model, being able to
> read precise technical discussions is important. This was Ansel Adam's
> failure, he confused mechanism and technique in his zone system poetics
> (poesis is probably the more correct term, here.) You also need to use a
> dictionary, of course. best, Chris Jones.
|