 |
 |
It hasn't anything to do with resembling or recognizing the dead grandma but, as Walton makes the claim, it is that in looking at the photo of the woman we are _literally_ looking at that woman. I find the claim stated in that way makes it seem overly paradoxical: our ordinary usage of 'really seeing' in mirrors, live television, telescopes and the like might be a bit ad hoc. What is important is that it makes a distinction between photographic and similar images and hand-made images. (On the other hand, it may help explain certain usages of photographs, as I've argued in some writing on the use of photographs on gravestones in certain cultural groups.) The transparency claim would hold even if the photo was taken with some kind of extreme anamorphic that makes the woman virtually unrecognizable (may even also apply to completely unrecognizable objects, though these may be something other than pictures). > Here I just simply disagree. Any pixel can be replaced and everybody knows = > it. It's not a matter of complexity of description, it's a matter of the fu= > ndamental nature of the image. It is of course easier to manipulate digital images than to manipulate analog ones, which raises questions about assumptions of trustworthiness as applied to digital images. True, but the transparency claim isn't epistemological. Insofar as the causal chains are not interfered with, transparency holds. Where they are, at least in a nonglobal manner -- through dodging and burning in the darkroom or selection adjustments digitally -- transparency begins to be compromised. I suspect that it can hold for some parts of the photo but not for others and also suspect that working out the details of how this would work would be a major headache. j On 10/27/10 11:04 PM, Dan Barnett wrote: > This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > ----------MB_8CD4463F4120E55_8F8_724D9_Webmail-d113.sysops.aol.com > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > John writes: > > > Transparency here really doesn't have anything to do with perceiving the=20 > screen/frame as phenomenal window or to any kind of looking-like=20 > relationship between image and object (except maybe to the extent some=20 > notion of looking-like might be involved in being a picture at all).=20 > > > Sorry John, I just don't get it. What exactly do you (Walton) mean when you= > claim that the transparency is ontological? > > > > The causal relationship with the sensor isn't really that different than=20 > the relationship with film (though maybe the use of Bayer arrays makes=20 > digi images that use them a bit harder to describe). I'd think that=20 > post=3Dprocessing of selections, whether through analog dodging and=20 > burning or digital curve adjustments the like, compromises transparency,=20 > though I don't think global adjustments do (for the same reason that=20 > exposure, framing, etc. do not). Actually I think Walton has claimed=20 > that mechanical systematic painting procedures, somewhat like that used=20 > by Chuck Close, would maintain transparency. > > > Here I just simply disagree. Any pixel can be replaced and everybody knows = > it. It's not a matter of complexity of description, it's a matter of the fu= > ndamental nature of the image. > Cultural conventions change. And the conventions around the digital image h= > ave made the transparency suspect. > db > > > > > > > > =20 > > * > * > Film-Philosophy > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] > Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html > For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon > * > Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com > Contact: [log in to unmask] > ** > > ----------MB_8CD4463F4120E55_8F8_724D9_Webmail-d113.sysops.aol.com > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" > > <font color=3D'black' size=3D'2' face=3D'Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif'>John= > writes:<br> > > <div style=3D"font-family:helvetica,arial;font-size:10pt;color:black"><bloc= > kquote style=3D"border-left: 2px solid blue; padding-left: 3px;"><pre><tt>T= > ransparency here really doesn't have anything to do with perceiving the=20 > screen/frame as phenomenal window or to any kind of looking-like=20 > relationship between image and object (except maybe to the extent some=20 > notion of looking-like might be involved in being a picture at all).</tt><= > /pre><pre><tt><br> > </tt></pre><pre><tt><font class=3D"Apple-style-span" face=3D"Arial, Helveti= > ca, sans-serif">Sorry John, I just don't get it. What exactly do you (Walto= > n) mean when you claim that the transparency is ontological?</font></tt></p= > re><tt></tt></blockquote></div> > <br> > <span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Ari= > al, sans-serif; font-size: 10px; "><pre style=3D"font-size: 9pt; "><tt>The = > causal relationship with the sensor isn't really that different than=20 > the relationship with film (though maybe the use of Bayer arrays makes=20 > digi images that use them a bit harder to describe). I'd think that=20 > post=3Dprocessing of selections, whether through analog dodging and=20 > burning or digital curve adjustments the like, compromises transparency,=20 > though I don't think global adjustments do (for the same reason that=20 > exposure, framing, etc. do not). Actually I think Walton has claimed=20 > that mechanical systematic painting procedures, somewhat like that used=20 > by Chuck Close, would maintain transparency.</tt></pre><pre style=3D"font-s= > ize: 9pt; "><tt><br> > </tt></pre><pre><tt><font class=3D"Apple-style-span" face=3D"Arial, Helveti= > ca, sans-serif"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-size: small;= > ">Here I just simply disagree. Any pixel can be replaced and everybody know= > s it. It's not a matter of complexity of description, it's a matter of the = > fundamental nature of the image.</span></font></tt></pre><pre><tt><font cla= > ss=3D"Apple-style-span" face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class= > =3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-size: small;">Cultural conventions chan= > ge. And the conventions around the digital image have made the transparency= > suspect.</span></font></tt></pre><pre><tt><font class=3D"Apple-style-span"= > face=3D"Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"><span class=3D"Apple-style-span" sty= > le=3D"font-size: small;">db</span></font></tt></pre></span> > <div style=3D"clear:both"></div> > <br> > <br> > > <div style=3D"font-family:helvetica,arial;font-size:10pt;color:black"> > <div id=3D"AOLMsgPart_5_1662fd04-bf01-4cfb-b19e-20268fbaef0f" style=3D"marg= > in: 0px;font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif;font-size: 12px;col= > or: #000;background-color: #fff;"><pre style=3D"font-size: 9pt;"><tt> > </tt></pre> > </div> > <!-- end of AOLMsgPart_5_1662fd04-bf01-4cfb-b19e-20268fbaef0f --> > > > > </div> > </font> > * > * > Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon > After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to > To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] > Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html > For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon > * > Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com > Contact: [log in to unmask] > ** > ----------MB_8CD4463F4120E55_8F8_724D9_Webmail-d113.sysops.aol.com-- > * * Film-Philosophy After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For technical help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon * Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] **