 |
 |
"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.