Ну, есть еще комплексные системы, например адаптивные (к примеру -- "демон Максвелла", пропускающий быстрые частицы, но не пропускающий медленные), но речь тут скорее об упрощениях. Может быть еще перефразирую этот пункт.
2, 8, 9, 11 - по мне, явная метафизика. Отсюда, раздели все на 3 группы, например: в первой и второй - факты, в последней - подобная лирика. Это упростит восприятие материала. По-отдельности в виде формы эти утверждения просты, но вместе они не проще Улисса. )
Задай себе вопросы. Это подходит только для твоей фотографии или так можно сказать о многих других? Без чего здесь не обойтись? Ты хочешь это описать или сказать что-то другим? И т.п.
Они вперемешку отчасти именно потому, что по отдельности получается как трое слепых со слоном. Сейчас смотрим слева. Потом смотрим справа. К тому же, ты не прав насчёт метафизики, тут её нет нигде - для метафизика под пунктом 12 выносится нахер за рамки.
Это можно было бы сказать о некоторых других, но если это не говорится, то это и не относится. Вообще, стейтменты, по-моему, существуют где-то посередине между неотъемлимой составляющей работы и пасхалкой для интересующихся. )
Если это лирика, то мне нечего добавить, а тебе, возможно, не стоило спрашивать. Каждый поймет по-своему. - Написать, как нравится, что ты и сделал. Впрочем, все восприняли это как мишень для дротиков. Может, ожидалась другая реакция. )
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
( ... )
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...
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)
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?"
Comments 15
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Задай себе вопросы. Это подходит только для твоей фотографии или так можно сказать о многих других? Без чего здесь не обойтись? Ты хочешь это описать или сказать что-то другим? И т.п.
Reply
Это можно было бы сказать о некоторых других, но если это не говорится, то это и не относится. Вообще, стейтменты, по-моему, существуют где-то посередине между неотъемлимой составляющей работы и пасхалкой для интересующихся. )
Reply
Reply
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 ( ... )
Reply
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...
Reply
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)
Reply
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?"
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment