[kode]

Originally posted by an0n

Or as Einstein put it: It's all relative.

he also said "there are only two things that are infinite; the universe and human stupidity. I'm not to sure on the second one"...

[StratComm]

*wonders if this falls under nitpicking*

Originally posted by an0n
The picture IS NOT MOVING.

Show it to a five year old and he'll say "Hehe, that eagle has a white head.". The image itself has no meaning. It is simply the symbology within which pokes at your memory and thought patterns. For example, if you looked at a picture of the Columbia streaming towards the ground without knowing what it was, you'd think "Cool firework.", it is only because you associate the bald-eagle with america, a single tear with extreme sadness and the shuttle with the Challenger disaster that there is any emotion as a result of the memories stoked up by the picture. And the image of the eagle creates a sense that all of America was sad, this interacts with your own feelings of the incident and magnifies it to an epic scale, this creates emotion, not the picture of an eagle.

If you showed a picture of the Twin Towers exploding to a member of Al Qaeda, he'd probably laugh his ass off, therefore I summise that no image carries any inherant emotion and any/all reactions which result from viewing of any picture are merely due to the interaction and associations of the images contained within said picture within the mind of the observer.

And this, kids, is why I should've taken Psychology and Philosophy at college. BOO-YA!

It's not universal, no.  But in societal contexts pictures can be very moving.  I saw so many 9-11 images that weren't moving (to an American I would add, though a good number were) simply because they were aesthetically bad, so just calling up the memory isn't enough. A picture (or music, etc) has to be thought-provoking enough to force your mind to recreate the memory in whole, including the emotional context.  It is in this way that a picture can be moving, and symbolism has a lot to do with it.  The reason that images (or sounds) are more powerful than words is that language is, 99% of the time, a not particularly effective means of communicating either an image or an emotion.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH
see that's where you make a mistake......

when someone says the word sky, you don't see the letters s-k-y, your mind sees the sky.  It's all a symbology.  That's what art is in any form.  It speaks to us on a deeper level than logic, because of the symbology it uses to convey it's message.

Some people understand what is happening, some  don't.

you seem to think that objects have inherent (objective) meaning and somehow we can access that.... <--- total bull****

[an0n]

Each time you saw images of the towers, your mind associated them with whatever you were doing at the time, and after a while the association with the shock of the attack faded into the background.

And kode: It's the other way round.

[LtNarol]

Originally posted by beatspete
...and if your 'ignoree' thinks the same about you?

Does it matter?  In fact, if he does, then its a perfect arrangement; I don't have to waste my time reading his views and he doesn't have to waste his time reading mine .

And an0n, you're right about the picture in the sense that the picture itself has no meaning by itself other than looking good; but show it to anyone who remembers the Challenger incident and it's more powerful than words if for no reason other than the fact that it eliminates the need for words in order to convey message behind the painting.

EDIT: But I suppose that just means its relative, heh.

[an0n]

Kam: I DEMAND you change your sig back!

[an0n]

Originally posted by LtNarol
And an0n, you're right about the picture in the sense that the picture itself has no meaning by itself other than looking good; but show it to anyone who remembers the Challenger incident and it's more powerful than words if for no reason other than the fact that it eliminates the need for words in order to convey message behind the painting.

EDIT: But I suppose that just means its relative, heh.

Yup. Upon viewing, the mind of the observer creates a message, but there is no message or feeling within the picture itself.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by Kamikaze


you seem to think that objects have inherent (objective) meaning and somehow we can access that.... <--- total bull****

Actually he is stressing the importance of symbolism, and I didn't catch it at first.  I may be reading too much into it, but by using "symbology" rather than "symbolism" ShadowWolf points out that that picture, and other "moving" works intentionally make use of symbols and the way in which people will react to them.  English can be so specific if it's used correctly, something that so few native-speakers can do.

And nowhere does he say that it is universal (see my above post).

[kode]

Originally posted by an0n

And kode: It's the other way round.

no.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/q100015.html

[ShadowWolf_IH]

you seem to think that objects have inherent (objective) meaning and somehow we can access that.... <--- total bull****

not at all.  The only meaning any object can have is a meaning that we assign to it.  Even money.......the only thing that even makes money worth anything is the fact that we as a society give it that power.  It is a common acceptance.  No object has power.  No object has meaning.  Images on the other hand do.  Images can be symbols, and more often than not, are symbols.   At least within the context of this discussion.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by ShadowWolf_IH


not at all.  The only meaning any object can have is a meaning that we assign to it.  Even money.......the only thing that even makes money worth anything is the fact that we as a society give it that power.  It is a common acceptance.  No object has power.  No object has meaning.  Images on the other hand do.  Images can be symbols, and more often than not, are symbols.   At least within the context of this discussion.

attached meaning is only in our little subjective existence. doesn't make sense to say "The only meaning..."

[an0n]

All art is subjective. The images and feelings which are created within the mind of the observer as a result of viewing are as a result of their interpretation of the thoughts and feelings which were in the artist at the time of its conception.

If the artist was sexually abused at a lake-side cabin as a child, then their painting of a lake-side cabin is one of terror and fear, but to someone else it is merely a picturesque landscape painting.

Images carry no inherant meaning, message or feeling. They merely use common associations within the general population to create a certain sense within the observers mind.

[StratComm]

Originally posted by kode


no.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/q100015.html

Wow, that was confusing.  Yes, that is the quote [kode] that you have linked to, and yes, [an0n] kode originally wrote it backwards.  The former means the temporally first one, so it comes out to this:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about [the universe]."  I think you both have it right in your minds though.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by kode


no.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/q100015.html

Evidently Kode doesn`t know the difference between former and latter. Even his own link contradicts him

[an0n]

Originally posted by kode
no.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/q100015.html

........I'm gonna presume you're not trying to be a smart-ass and confuse me with the point of the quote, okay?

Former = First = the Universe
Latter = Last = Human Stupidity

[kode]

Originally posted by StratComm


Wow, that was confusing.  Yes, that is the quote [kode] that you have linked to, and yes, [an0n] kode originally wrote it backwards.  The former means the temporally first one, so it comes out to this:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about [the universe]."  I think you both have it right in your minds though.

I think you are saying that to my english teacher instead of me. You see, I am not a native english speaker, and therefore my knowledge of words is somewhat incorrect at times. where native english speakers has spoken the language since they were infants, I only started learning it six or seven years ago. I am sorry for your inconvenience. I'm going back to being ignorant now.

[kode]

Originally posted by karajorma


Evidently Kode doesn`t know the difference between former and latter. Even his own link contradicts him

wee... that's right. who told you that?

[an0n]

Oh, yeah.

*forgot kode was Swedish*

Fair enough.

[Mr. Vega]

I live in central Texas, I was asleep, but my parents heard the boom.

The Russians are running out of money for the ISS, and now this...

[ShadowWolf_IH]

I was actually going to clarify.....but we have already covered the fact that symbols are not universal.