JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for FILM-PHILOSOPHY Archives


FILM-PHILOSOPHY Archives

FILM-PHILOSOPHY Archives


FILM-PHILOSOPHY@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

FILM-PHILOSOPHY Home

FILM-PHILOSOPHY Home

FILM-PHILOSOPHY  October 2010

FILM-PHILOSOPHY October 2010

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 27 Oct 2010 to 28 Oct 2010 - Special issue (#2010-295)

From:

John Matturri <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Film-Philosophy <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 27 Oct 2010 23:51:56 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (172 lines)

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]
**

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager