Comments on: Did The Beatles Cheat? http://artandperception.com/2006/12/did-the-beatles-cheat.html a multi-disciplinary dialog Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:52:52 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: David http://artandperception.com/2006/12/did-the-beatles-cheat.html#comment-3446 David Tue, 09 Jan 2007 17:02:49 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2006/12/did-the-beatles-cheat.html#comment-3446 Here's a post from David Byrne that relates to this old thread of ours: <a href="http://journal.davidbyrne.com/2007/01/1207_crappy_sou.html">Crappy Sound Forever!</a> Pretty interesting reading about how technology influences aesthetic conventions. Here’s a post from David Byrne that relates to this old thread of ours: Crappy Sound Forever! Pretty interesting reading about how technology influences aesthetic conventions.

]]> By: Colin Jago http://artandperception.com/2006/12/did-the-beatles-cheat.html#comment-2384 Colin Jago Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:28:15 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2006/12/did-the-beatles-cheat.html#comment-2384 David <i>Colin, you’re probably impressed because I do tricks with them. My most famous one is to use words as a lasso and pull my foot into my mouth.</i> Well, it is a trick worth knowing how to do :-) David

Colin, you’re probably impressed because I do tricks with them. My most famous one is to use words as a lasso and pull my foot into my mouth.

Well, it is a trick worth knowing how to do :-)

]]> By: David http://artandperception.com/2006/12/did-the-beatles-cheat.html#comment-2375 David Wed, 13 Dec 2006 02:38:09 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2006/12/did-the-beatles-cheat.html#comment-2375 <i>I think we should make “Did The Beatles Cheat?” the new tagline.</i> Well it certainly would be the most cryptic one we've had :) I think we should make “Did The Beatles Cheat?” the new tagline.

Well it certainly would be the most cryptic one we’ve had :)

]]> By: David http://artandperception.com/2006/12/did-the-beatles-cheat.html#comment-2374 David Wed, 13 Dec 2006 02:36:44 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2006/12/did-the-beatles-cheat.html#comment-2374 <i>(hey, David, you are better at words than me…..)</i> Colin, you're probably impressed because I do tricks with them. My most famous one is to use words as a lasso and pull my foot into my mouth. (hey, David, you are better at words than me…..)

Colin, you’re probably impressed because I do tricks with them. My most famous one is to use words as a lasso and pull my foot into my mouth.

]]> By: Karl Zipser http://artandperception.com/2006/12/did-the-beatles-cheat.html#comment-2372 Karl Zipser Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:46:48 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2006/12/did-the-beatles-cheat.html#comment-2372 David, I think we should make "Did The Beatles Cheat?" the new tagline. David,
I think we should make “Did The Beatles Cheat?” the new tagline.

]]> By: Paul Butzi http://artandperception.com/2006/12/did-the-beatles-cheat.html#comment-2371 Paul Butzi Tue, 12 Dec 2006 23:21:24 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2006/12/did-the-beatles-cheat.html#comment-2371 <i>Maybe this is all simply because photos appear so strongly to be “just like reality”, that it’s a natural and automatic leap to the idea that they are faithful reproductions of reality? A sort of commonly-assumed contract between the photographer and his/her audience?</i> This reminds me of the story about Picasso painting a commissioned portrait of a woman. When it was done, the husband didn't like it, and said "It doesn't look like my wife!" Picasso asked "So, what does she look like?" and the man took a photo out of his wallet and passed it to Picasso. "She's rather small and flat!" responded Picasso. On the rare occasion that I get confused about reality and my photographs, I show my recent work to my dog. He loves me a lot, but he thinks my fascination with pieces of paper with colored patterns on them is utterly perplexing. He, at least, does not confuse reality and the photograph. But Maiken is right. Try this experiment - dig out a photo of some recognizable thing. Find a person. Approach the person, hold up the photo, and ask "What is this?" 99 times out of 100, the response is "It's a (subject of photo)". Only 1 out of 100 will say "It's a photo of a (subject of photo)." Maybe this is all simply because photos appear so strongly to be “just like reality”, that it’s a natural and automatic leap to the idea that they are faithful reproductions of reality? A sort of commonly-assumed contract between the photographer and his/her audience?

This reminds me of the story about Picasso painting a commissioned portrait of a woman. When it was done, the husband didn’t like it, and said “It doesn’t look like my wife!” Picasso asked “So, what does she look like?” and the man took a photo out of his wallet and passed it to Picasso. “She’s rather small and flat!” responded Picasso.

On the rare occasion that I get confused about reality and my photographs, I show my recent work to my dog. He loves me a lot, but he thinks my fascination with pieces of paper with colored patterns on them is utterly perplexing. He, at least, does not confuse reality and the photograph.

But Maiken is right. Try this experiment - dig out a photo of some recognizable thing. Find a person. Approach the person, hold up the photo, and ask “What is this?”

99 times out of 100, the response is “It’s a (subject of photo)”. Only 1 out of 100 will say “It’s a photo of a (subject of photo).”

]]> By: maiken http://artandperception.com/2006/12/did-the-beatles-cheat.html#comment-2367 maiken Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:18:42 +0000 http://www.artandperception.com/2006/12/did-the-beatles-cheat.html#comment-2367 <i>Have you ever put it to the people that you have discussed photo manipulation with that there is no such thing as an unmanipulated photo?</i> Yes, I often point this out. As far as I can tell, though, they seem committed to the idea that there is a reasonably bright line between a photo that shows "what things really looked like" and one that does not, and that they think less of the latter. I think you're right that when I explain that I intend for my photos to show <i>how I saw</i> a scene, this is comforting to them, becase it moves things closer to the "this is how things looked" side. Maybe this is all simply because photos <i>appear</i> so strongly to be "just like reality", that it's a natural and automatic leap to the idea that they are <i>faithful reproductions</i> of reality? A sort of commonly-assumed contract between the photographer and his/her audience? Have you ever put it to the people that you have discussed photo manipulation with that there is no such thing as an unmanipulated photo?

Yes, I often point this out. As far as I can tell, though, they seem committed to the idea that there is a reasonably bright line between a photo that shows “what things really looked like” and one that does not, and that they think less of the latter.

I think you’re right that when I explain that I intend for my photos to show how I saw a scene, this is comforting to them, becase it moves things closer to the “this is how things looked” side.

Maybe this is all simply because photos appear so strongly to be “just like reality”, that it’s a natural and automatic leap to the idea that they are faithful reproductions of reality? A sort of commonly-assumed contract between the photographer and his/her audience?

]]>