Aside from my sloppy comparative use of the absolute "perfect." (it
_was_early in the morning :-), I meant exactly what I said. And it is
certainly not sad, at least not to me. If your reality is always
beautiful, always worth preserving exactly as it is, then you are a very
fortunate woman. My reality has not always been so nice. I've
experienced a lot of ugly things and have had to dig my way out of some
pretty deep holes. Along the way I've found that imagination can save
the soul. Painting a new and prettier world can heal a lot of wounds.
But we all do that to some extent. Even Shel's pictures of street
people don't fully capture the stench of reality (although that may be
his objective). The running sores are hidden beneath the soiled
clothing. The poverty is depicted only in terms of circumstantial
evidence. There is no burning, empty pit at the bottom of a stomach. A
picture of a neon sign on a New York street corner can be warm and
appealing. Yet the reality of that street corner might harbor untold
misery and danger, incalculable cold and deprivation. Photography can
and does present an improved version of reality. And that's a good thing.
Paul Stenquist
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>
> PAUL STENQUIST wrote:
> >
> > I enjoy using technical tools to make a more perfect version of those
> > things I see.
> >
>
> I hope you don't realy mean quite that - very sad, if so.
>
> annsan
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
