My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br /> beyondpareidolia.shutterfly.com/ (see lower right of four photos.) left click photo to enlarge........
(see photo titled "Einstein")
These are the most detailed example of pareidolia ever recorded. They show<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Fred, this is great stuff. A couple of questions, though. I assume your details are about "Einstein", correct? Also, in the top link you say to see "lower right of four photos", but when I click on that link I see two rows of three photos, so I'm not sure which one you're talking about. Are you talking about Einstein in both links?

Also, unfortunately it's kind of hard to see all that detail on these thumbnails, but I agree if one looked at an 8x10 enlargement made off the original 35mm negative, we'd see a lot more detail. I even commented on that fact when I first mentioned your work on page 5 of this topic, where I posted links to "Dylan" and "Lila". I figured that, as an artist, you would only let so much out on the internet, and would want to protect your intellectual property as much as you could. That's understandable.

rd

<i>Originally posted by neilderosa</i>
[NOTE - original poster was Richard Derosa, not Neil - LB]
<br />"I think Skullface is an excellent example of the point I'm trying to make." [rd]

You are entitled to your opinion.

"They did tons of "scientific tests" that convinced them it was real. High resolution tossed it all out the window.

In other words, if we rewind back to before

Richard - Yes the 35 features are talking about the same "Einstein" photo on the Boxer and Yardog sites. For some reason i only get 4 photos when i view the outsiderart/ Boxer site the top link i sent you, (i used to get six and i think "Einstein" was on the lower left then. It is untitled so i included the Yarddog site.(lower link i sent you). Left clicking the thumbnails should enlarge them on either site. The Yardog site shows more detail when enlarged especially in "Einsteins" left eye. (the eye on your right as you view "him.")
Yes, i only have a limited # of photos on the web (10 or so) and have over 250, mostly copy-writen. i only have one example on the web of two pareidolic figures in one photo ("Mother and Child") on the Yarddog site. i have many other couples and multiple figures on the same photograph and i especially like them because they have a similar overall quality as if they were painted by the same painter. Each frame always has a unifying "flow pattern" and that pattern is never repeated from frame to frame, but is repeated internally. You can see this in "Mother & Child," but i have much better examples. Some quite "sexy." i also have a bearded "Father and Child."These "couples" mostly started showing up later for some reason. The whole thing is so phenomenal as far as reflecting my unconscious goes, that it is only surpassed by the phenomenon that no one else tries this photographing of shadows, as far as i know.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />it is only surpassed by the phenomenon that no one else tries this photographing of shadows, as far as i know.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I suspect it's not as easy as it may seem to you. You tapped into it, maybe with a little luck at first (maybe not), but then you practiced and got better at it. It could actually be very hard to do. Think about it, how many people would think to go outside and take pictures of the shadows?

Although, it wouldn't hurt to try it. It might make for an interesting experiment, and it is relevent to this topic. Have you ever used a digital camera? Do you think it matters?

rd

Now that someone has done it with good results condoned by the renowned coiner of the term "outsider art," accepted by major galleries, it doesn't seem that far fetched that others would want to join in. The reason they don't is proof that the natural flow of light which everything follows has been subverted by the monetary flow that replaced it. In other words, it doesn't pay. This is what determines what most people (except artists do.) Most just follow the herd. One can make a living from the, what most people consider "undesireable" occupation to the "exhaulted" medicine-man/priest. If people could get rewarded for capturing pareidolia they would do it. Marginalized me, and Alexander Boes is the only exception that comes to mind. Can't write any more or the monetary flow will delete my subversive/iconoclastic ways from this site as happened previously when i tried to fulfill the title "My pareidolia knows no bounds." My question is who is the real nut case me or the warrior/money-worshiping world. Yes digital is the way to go. Hook up a video-recorder to a face recognition system and you will leave "Einstein" in the dark. i am here to get people to see they haven't seen. i have showed them what Leonardo Da Vinci showed them was the origin of art (See Leonardo- quickening the spirit of invention). The only art that comes close to these photos is a lot of Van Gogh and the best Picasso. You think i hven't thought about it? Love is all you need. (Beatles).

Wanted to clarify one thing. Analog has some great advantages over digital, mainly the artistic look of the natural grain and overall organic/artistic look. You also have an original copy which is the real art. With digital there is no original so there is really no art. Digital's main advantage is the cost is virtually non-existent (once you have the camera) so you can shoot with no monetary concern.