From: Terry King, 101522,2625
TO: PHOTOART, INTERNET:photoart@latrobe.edu.au
CC: Multiple recipients, INTERNET:alt-photo-process@cse.unsw.edu.au
DATE: 18/10/96 09:10
RE: Copy of: Copy of: Re: Copy of: Copy of: Re: Truth, Concept, and Reality
---------- Forwarded Message ----------
From: Terry King, 101522,2625
TO: PHOTOART, INTERNET:photoart@latrobe.edu.au
DATE: 18/10/96 08:35
RE: Copy of: Re: Copy of: Copy of: Re: Truth, Concept, and Reality
Eric
You said:
>>> To the photographer, the phrase "post-photographic
>>>age" seems, on the surface, implausibly silly:
I said:
>>It is not just to photographers, and it is not a matter of seeming, the phrase
>>is, both on the surface and in depth, silly.
You said:
>If we dismiss this idea as being silly, a priori, there would be no
>discussion. I am trying to take the idea seriously and seeing what sense we
>can make of it.
I said:
>>The photograph is an artefact produced by a tool. You should be
differentiating
>>between the photograph and the image. In no way can the phrase 'post
>>photographic' accurately describe your experience in this context [ unless
you,
>>like the caterpillar, make the words mean what you choose them to mean.]
You said:
>I don't have a clue what you mean by differentiating the photograph from
>the image.
Eric, if you cannot make that differentiation then this whole discussion is
pointless. There is a difference. And it is this difference that invalidates
your premise and thus your whole argument. That difference makes the whole
concept of a post photographic age deeply silly.
As they say in Yorkshire " Think on't "
Terry