That's interesting Lawrence, because I often try to catch a light that attracks me at that moment. But I never do, as such. I think we actually see *with intent* in a way no machine can (yet anyway). So there's some overtone of the seen that shifts & changes minutely as we look that a shot doesnt get. Do the photo is often really beautiful but still isnt quite what i 'saw'...? At which point, those inadequate words come into their (lesser) own...
Doug
On 2012-05-24, at 4:26 AM, Lawrence Upton wrote:
> Sandra Blow used to be able to get that light in her paintings. Not many
> others. I take lots of photos but I use them to make other images. The
> camera, certainly not my camera, or not with me holding it, won't get that
> -- whatever it is... you can get effects of it, but the whole, the bright
> clarity, that eludes me.
Douglas Barbour
[log in to unmask]
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
http://eclecticruckus.wordpress.com/
Latest books:
Continuations & Continuations 2 (with Sheila E Murphy)
http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=962
Wednesdays'
http://abovegroundpress.blogspot.com/2008/03/new-from-aboveground-press_10.html
Why can’t words mean what they say?
Robert Kroetsch
|