Photography statement (alpha)

[melkore]

Доделал первую пробу конечного стейтмента -- пока что по фотографии, но нетрудно догадаться, что большая часть из этого относится и к стихам тоже.

1. Inanimate observation. Pointing

Comments

[staszic]

1. Pointing is a bit rude with a finger, and not very convenient without.
2. What's left of the author then? Just the choice of shot and focus? There are cameras with an auto focus nowadays. (That was two questions and an assertion).
3. Beyonce.
4. Um, traffic signs? Oh, that wasn't a riddle. Parataxis is very nice when you need one. What would be the visual equivalent of the opposite thing

[melkore]

1. Surely you can simply nod in the direction, but that might be taken awkwardly.
2. I refer to pt. 10.
3. ಠ_ಠ
4. Gursky's urban scenes come to mind.
5. Not if you say the smallest unit of anything is not an object, but a fact.
6. Exactly. We can all move on now.
7. It's consistent because it's there. This point largely derives from others.
8. Nope, that's derived meaning.
9. /r/trees would like to have a word. )
10. (No you aren't)
11. (I don't think you're sorry about this one either)
12. Something something whereof one cannot speak...

[staszic]

1. I pointed with an arrow once. Not a good thing to do in an official document, as it turned out.
2. I swear there were two questions and that other thing beginning with as-. Unless I've miscounted.
3. (Really sorry).
4. Oh, thanks, I'll take a look.
5. If everything is turned into these or those systems by the delicate process of simplification, aren't the facts included in 'everything'? And systems were objects, last time I checked (which is, honestly, never, but still).
6. Sure, naturally.
7. If a tree fell in a forest, and no one was there to check the consistency of the falling... (oh, scratch that, we'll never know, trees never give verified data on the matter).
8. Derived by whom, exactly -- sorry, through whom?
9. And the word is 'liars'. Can we spell 'WOODEN HYPOCRISY'?
10. (I am, a bit. The pun was throughly awful).
11. (I wasn't even going to be sorry about this one, though).
12. 'Ever noticed how some things are like other things?' (c)

[melkore]

1. You need to point arrows at people, not documents, silly. )
3, 10, 11. ಠ_ಠ
5. I think this has gone into semantics. Either way, I think I'll change that part anyway, it's unimportant.
7. With photography, it's easier -- if there's a picture of it, then at the very least, the tree took a selfie.
8. In this case, through the scene as is.
12. "How can you say colors are real if our eyes aren't real?"

[staszic]

1. Words to live by, indeed ))
5. Yeah, it kinda has. My point actually was, simplification turns anything into the simplified version of it, and therefore 'not itself'. Which is not simple; while it's hard being self all the time, it's way harder to be something not quite self while trying to be as self as possible... But maybe that's the desired effect, who knows. Sadly, author wasn't about to provide the implied meaning to decide (okay, I'll stop it now).
7. Okay, a tree can be pictured, and so can a sea. Could lack-of-a-ship take a selfie (selflessie?), though, is another matter.
12. Oh, eyes are real alright, as well as colors. That leaves us as unreal ones.

Anyway, thanks for the chat, have a good night ))