- Thank you received: 0
Mro--First Looks
- tvanflandern
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
18 years 4 days ago #19196
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rderosa</i>
<br />If your stuff is what you say it is, what three reputable art dealers say it is, then that single fact alone flies in the face of the whole Artificial Origins Hypothesis (AOH) as it pertains to Mars. That's HUGE.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not quite that huge. NONE of the current arguments for artificiality in the Cydonia Face depend on "what it looks like". So the distinction between pereidolia and artificiality comes into play only for secondary images that might help us understand the "who, what, when, how, why" questions, given artificiality elsewhere.
That should be evident from the fact that I suspect Fred's stuff is genuine pereidolia, yet think many of Neil's images are artificial. I see no inconsistency there, do you? -|Tom|-
<br />If your stuff is what you say it is, what three reputable art dealers say it is, then that single fact alone flies in the face of the whole Artificial Origins Hypothesis (AOH) as it pertains to Mars. That's HUGE.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Not quite that huge. NONE of the current arguments for artificiality in the Cydonia Face depend on "what it looks like". So the distinction between pereidolia and artificiality comes into play only for secondary images that might help us understand the "who, what, when, how, why" questions, given artificiality elsewhere.
That should be evident from the fact that I suspect Fred's stuff is genuine pereidolia, yet think many of Neil's images are artificial. I see no inconsistency there, do you? -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- pareidoliac
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 4 days ago #17790
by pareidoliac
Replied by pareidoliac on topic Reply from fred ressler
Just to add a little more verification. It's a lot more than three reputable art dealers. Here's am article that appeared in Raw Vision magazine # 49 by Gary Monroe, photographer, author, and a PHOTOGRAPHY INSTRUCTOR at Daytona Beach Community College.
www.garymonroe.net/article-ressler.htm
He's written several books at least one published by the University of Florida. He visited my house twice, looked at the 65 photos on the my walls,interviewed me, and never for a second questioned their authenticity.
Beyond this there is Roger Cardinal, probably the foremost authority on outsider and visionary art, who first brought my work to the public. Professor emeritus at Kent University. i sent some photos to John Maisels editor of "Raw Vision" magazine who forwarded them to Mr. Cardinal in 1996. Mr. Cardinal coined the term "outsider art." i met with him and spoke with him at the outider art fair in NYC in 2002. Then there's Andrea Robbins who teaches photography at the University of Florida. i am giving a talk to her class this Monday.
i've been very successful but it surely hasn't been monetarily. i calculate $1.00 per hour.
Not asking for a retraction from Neil, would just appreciate a little meditation on his part about his comments and, the motivation for them about what he implied and said. -fred. (outside the outside).
www.garymonroe.net/article-ressler.htm
He's written several books at least one published by the University of Florida. He visited my house twice, looked at the 65 photos on the my walls,interviewed me, and never for a second questioned their authenticity.
Beyond this there is Roger Cardinal, probably the foremost authority on outsider and visionary art, who first brought my work to the public. Professor emeritus at Kent University. i sent some photos to John Maisels editor of "Raw Vision" magazine who forwarded them to Mr. Cardinal in 1996. Mr. Cardinal coined the term "outsider art." i met with him and spoke with him at the outider art fair in NYC in 2002. Then there's Andrea Robbins who teaches photography at the University of Florida. i am giving a talk to her class this Monday.
i've been very successful but it surely hasn't been monetarily. i calculate $1.00 per hour.
Not asking for a retraction from Neil, would just appreciate a little meditation on his part about his comments and, the motivation for them about what he implied and said. -fred. (outside the outside).
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 3 days ago #17793
by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
<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 />Here's am article that appeared in Raw Vision magazine # 49 by Gary Monroe, photographer, author, and a PHOTOGRAPHY INSTRUCTOR at Daytona Beach Community College.
www.garymonroe.net/article-ressler.htm
Fred, the article is very interesting and it does re-inforce what I first thought, the first time I read a blurb on your work. Plus, I also learned a couple of things from this article. I want to post a couple of excerpts with comment or question.
Excerpt: "Ressler’s photographs are composed solely of the play between light and shadow. His technique is simple and straightforward. He has the film processed and the photographs printed at a custom laboratory. There is no room for photographic or digital manipulation."
Me>> I understand what he's saying here. Your setup is one of dropping off the undeveloped film at your custom laboratory. So, on the surface everything appears to be what you say it is, and there's "no room for manipulation". It all seems obvious to me, and straightforward, but in all fairness, have you ever been asked to prove anything. For instance, has anyone ever asked to see the negatives after the fact of getting them developed, and the prints copyrighted? Has anyone (art dealer or critic) ever done a side by side comparison with one of the copyrighted photos with the negative? That one step alone would go a long way towards ruling out a whole host of after the fact manipulation.
This may seem nuts to you, because well respected art people have done whatever they deem necessary, but "proof" has a different standard. Think of what the FBI might do, or a good team of legal investigators who for some reason or another had to prove that "Image A" came from "Negative A", and you'll see what is being asked here. This part seems like the easy part (proving the chain from snapping the picture, to negative, to print), but unfortunately that wouldn't be everything. But it would help.
Excerpt: "According to Ressler the images are always there, ‘filtering through the trees, it’s just a matter of how clearly defined’. His interest, though, is not in the passing fancy, of finding resemblances to the natural or super-natural world. This is further reinforced by the fact that his photographs do not contain any real objects, such as branches or leaves. "
Me>> This is interesting. What does he mean by "do not contain any real objects, such as branches or leaves?" Surely we are looking at shadows of real objects such as branches or leaves, aren't we? Or are you deliberately trying to capture shadows that have obscured the fact that what we're looking at are shadows of leaves and branches. I don't quite understand this part, but it seems important to me.
Excerpt: "All of Ressler’s photographs are rendered in as much focus as possible (using an old Nikkormat manual camera). Paradoxically though, due to the nature of the shadows themselves, the image is never keenly resolved. Ressler’s unique photographic practice highlights the difficulty of asserting one type of epistemological reality or set of beliefs over another. Neither the shadows nor the photographs are definitive and yet it is this lack of definition that gives them their fluidity and meaning. They are inversions or negative reproductions of the real."
Me>> This is the "blurry" part that I tried to explain with my little demo. The blurriness comes not from a state of non-focus, but rather from the nature of shadows of overlapping leaves 20 feet away or so.
rd
<br />Here's am article that appeared in Raw Vision magazine # 49 by Gary Monroe, photographer, author, and a PHOTOGRAPHY INSTRUCTOR at Daytona Beach Community College.
www.garymonroe.net/article-ressler.htm
Fred, the article is very interesting and it does re-inforce what I first thought, the first time I read a blurb on your work. Plus, I also learned a couple of things from this article. I want to post a couple of excerpts with comment or question.
Excerpt: "Ressler’s photographs are composed solely of the play between light and shadow. His technique is simple and straightforward. He has the film processed and the photographs printed at a custom laboratory. There is no room for photographic or digital manipulation."
Me>> I understand what he's saying here. Your setup is one of dropping off the undeveloped film at your custom laboratory. So, on the surface everything appears to be what you say it is, and there's "no room for manipulation". It all seems obvious to me, and straightforward, but in all fairness, have you ever been asked to prove anything. For instance, has anyone ever asked to see the negatives after the fact of getting them developed, and the prints copyrighted? Has anyone (art dealer or critic) ever done a side by side comparison with one of the copyrighted photos with the negative? That one step alone would go a long way towards ruling out a whole host of after the fact manipulation.
This may seem nuts to you, because well respected art people have done whatever they deem necessary, but "proof" has a different standard. Think of what the FBI might do, or a good team of legal investigators who for some reason or another had to prove that "Image A" came from "Negative A", and you'll see what is being asked here. This part seems like the easy part (proving the chain from snapping the picture, to negative, to print), but unfortunately that wouldn't be everything. But it would help.
Excerpt: "According to Ressler the images are always there, ‘filtering through the trees, it’s just a matter of how clearly defined’. His interest, though, is not in the passing fancy, of finding resemblances to the natural or super-natural world. This is further reinforced by the fact that his photographs do not contain any real objects, such as branches or leaves. "
Me>> This is interesting. What does he mean by "do not contain any real objects, such as branches or leaves?" Surely we are looking at shadows of real objects such as branches or leaves, aren't we? Or are you deliberately trying to capture shadows that have obscured the fact that what we're looking at are shadows of leaves and branches. I don't quite understand this part, but it seems important to me.
Excerpt: "All of Ressler’s photographs are rendered in as much focus as possible (using an old Nikkormat manual camera). Paradoxically though, due to the nature of the shadows themselves, the image is never keenly resolved. Ressler’s unique photographic practice highlights the difficulty of asserting one type of epistemological reality or set of beliefs over another. Neither the shadows nor the photographs are definitive and yet it is this lack of definition that gives them their fluidity and meaning. They are inversions or negative reproductions of the real."
Me>> This is the "blurry" part that I tried to explain with my little demo. The blurriness comes not from a state of non-focus, but rather from the nature of shadows of overlapping leaves 20 feet away or so.
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 3 days ago #19135
by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br />Not quite that huge. ......That should be evident from the fact that I suspect Fred's stuff is genuine pereidolia, yet think many of Neil's images are artificial. I see no inconsistency there, do you? -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ok, maybe "huge" is an overstatement, but how important it is depends upon your viewpoint. In your case, you're right there is no inconsistency with respect to the secondary artificiality issue. But, in Neil's case he's making a blanket statement that such pareidolia does not exist. Period. So it's huge for his stance.
rd
<br />Not quite that huge. ......That should be evident from the fact that I suspect Fred's stuff is genuine pereidolia, yet think many of Neil's images are artificial. I see no inconsistency there, do you? -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Ok, maybe "huge" is an overstatement, but how important it is depends upon your viewpoint. In your case, you're right there is no inconsistency with respect to the secondary artificiality issue. But, in Neil's case he's making a blanket statement that such pareidolia does not exist. Period. So it's huge for his stance.
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- pareidoliac
- Offline
- Elite Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
18 years 3 days ago #19020
by pareidoliac
Replied by pareidoliac on topic Reply from fred ressler
rd- i have never been asked to prove anything, except by you guys.
i am not in awe of science (to me it is merely the new "religion"). Has the existence of matter been "proven?"
The only way to prove it to you is do it yourself. Mr. Monroe meant that these are photographs of shadows of branches and leaves, not actual branches and leaves. i actually do have one photo "Beauty and the Beast", (unpublished) in which a coontie (zamia) plant is between the shadow catching board and the camera and is seen as would be expected, looking like a "real in focus plant". You're right, the shadows are in focus but appear "blurry," because people are so confused they expect the "shadow people," to be as in focus as a "real person" would be. The images are "keenly resolved" but not as keen as an in focus photograph of a person,- naturally..
i am not in awe of science (to me it is merely the new "religion"). Has the existence of matter been "proven?"
The only way to prove it to you is do it yourself. Mr. Monroe meant that these are photographs of shadows of branches and leaves, not actual branches and leaves. i actually do have one photo "Beauty and the Beast", (unpublished) in which a coontie (zamia) plant is between the shadow catching board and the camera and is seen as would be expected, looking like a "real in focus plant". You're right, the shadows are in focus but appear "blurry," because people are so confused they expect the "shadow people," to be as in focus as a "real person" would be. The images are "keenly resolved" but not as keen as an in focus photograph of a person,- naturally..
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
18 years 3 days ago #17794
by rderosa
Replied by rderosa on topic Reply from Richard DeRosa
<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 />i have never been asked to prove anything, except by you guys.
i am not in awe of science <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I understand. I was merely curious if you <b>could </b>prove it, if you chose to. Suppose, just for the sake of argument that there was some grave consequences at stake. Use your imagination, and think of a situation in which something you really cared about was held in the balance. <b>Could </b>you prove to some degree of certainty (to a reasonable person with no ax to grind), that your copyrighted photos could be reproduced <b>from </b> the negative? I don't want to belabor this point, so this is all I'll say about it.
rd
<br />i have never been asked to prove anything, except by you guys.
i am not in awe of science <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> I understand. I was merely curious if you <b>could </b>prove it, if you chose to. Suppose, just for the sake of argument that there was some grave consequences at stake. Use your imagination, and think of a situation in which something you really cared about was held in the balance. <b>Could </b>you prove to some degree of certainty (to a reasonable person with no ax to grind), that your copyrighted photos could be reproduced <b>from </b> the negative? I don't want to belabor this point, so this is all I'll say about it.
rd
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.500 seconds