if a picture is taken with no one there to see it , does it exist ?
Erwin Schrodinger would be 126 today!
I once opened a box, the cat ''waved' and then 'collapsed' !!
if a picture is taken with no one there to see it , does it exist ?
I once opened a box, the cat ''waved' and then 'collapsed' !!
going to Scotland ?
Seriously though, how can the aim of a photograph be anything but an effort to record the scene you see at the point of pressing the shutter?
I get the feeling nobody is taking this thread seriously.......
Erwin Schrodinger would be 126 today!
I once opened a box, the cat ''waved' and then 'collapsed' !!
Photography is what saves Earth from destruction.
Ever since the first photograph was taken by Leonardo Da Vinci, who used both the time machine and the camera he invented to create the image we now call the Turin Shroud, aliens from distant stars - and even galaxies - have been purchasing photos of our planet, as Earth has been coming top of the 'Most Attractive Planet in Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha' polls for most of the last 10,000 Earth years.
Of course this has caused considerable jealousy among those from less attractive planets, and the Green Ink Overlords have been paying squadrons of inter-stellar mercenaries in photographs to protect Earth. Some of these are using Galactic Federation surplus flying saucers with dodgy cloaking devices, which is how the sightings of UFOs and 'orbs' sometimes show up on photos.
The aliens use a special ray to influence people into taking the sort of photos they favour, which is why people are unable to stop taking pictures of light trails, smoky water, over-cooked HRD, spot colour, and car-rig shots. This makes sense as no rational person would dream of taking such pictures otherwise.
I hope this helps.
Try researching Alfred Steiglitz and equivalents.
Alfred Steiglitz and the equivalents.
Its rather a philosophical question... Your thread would probably benefit from one of those Open Univsrsity lecturer types voicing up, you know those guys from the early days on BBC2 with flares, hair all over the place, cord jackets and sideburns!I get the feeling nobody is taking this thread seriously.......
Its rather a philosophical question... Your thread would probably benefit from one of those Open Univsrsity lecturer types voicing up, you know those guys from the early days on BBC2 with flares, hair all over the place, cord jackets and sideburns!
not really - it depends how its couched , and how much beer has been collectively consumed
really what can you do with "did god intend man to take photos ?" - beyond 'well He gave us free will so He must have intended the choice to be there' (assuming one believes in sky pixies etc)
So do I understand correctly that if a question is deemed "philosophical" no one will actually take it seriously and discuss it? If so, I've learned a valuable lesson from this thread.
+1 another member who don't believe in God
What is the aim of photography? Seriously? It's not philosophical it's bonkers.
It's like asking "What is the aim of knitting".
It's like asking "What is the aim of knitting".
The question may have been poorly put, but perfectly reasonable.
:
whereas that was a well reasoned and valuable contribution to the debate :shake:
The question may have been poorly put, but perfectly reasonable.
You lot deserve each other.
:thumbsdown:
There's no debate here, just a **** take. And you know it.
And that's my last "well reasoned and valuable contribution."
The question may have been poorly put, but perfectly reasonable.
You lot deserve each other.
:thumbsdown:
@ PhotographyBuff
What do you think?
I am asking the question at the broadest level. So I would prefer answers that consider the philosophical and artistic aspects of photography rather than the everyday practical ones. "Did God intend for man to take photos? If so, why?" would be another way to consider the question.
"Did God intend for man to take photos? If so, why?"