|
BLOGGER
Youngest kid of six with an inferiority and black sheep complex, but determined that God saves not just his soul to heaven but the remainder of his manic-depressive life, so others won't say he became a Christian and remained a jerk.
MAIN THEMES
On identity i won't be transparent before i'm opaque. and you'll get to know me starting from the small things: who my favourite bands are. what kind of movies i like. who are my heroes. On Christianity I’m convinced that when confronted with sincere, real love, the Jesus factor will become obvious. But let’s not plant the cross before we carry it. I’m not trying to con you. On dreams Some dreams are meant to be achieved. I know that. But maybe other dreams are meant to drive us, privately. Never known to anyone but ourselves.
OTHER THEMES
On melancholy It is a sadness that, when choosing between crying and sighing, will choose sighing. I'd almost say that melancholy is being sad about sadness itself. On memory and nostalgia It saddens me when life moves forward and people decide that certain things are worth forgetting. On language I've learnt that the word irregardless is filed as a non-standard word in the English language. That's a lexicographer's way of saying it's not a real word. On politics Crowds are fickle things. So when we stand in the thousands and cry against the present government, do we know who we're actually crying for? On society People always want the best for themselves. But I want to sometimes take second or third or fourth best, just so that the loser down the road doesn't always have to come in last. It must feel like shit to always come in last. On growing old Leasehold property make me feel sad. It doesn't matter how old the family photos are that you put on your wall. It's your family but it's not really your wall. On philosophy I ask you, if God loves everyone, and if God is also incapable of loving evil, how can there be such a thing as an evil man? On a daily basis One line quips, like this. CHAT
VISITORS
FEEDS 
ARCHIVE
March 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 July 2005 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 February 2010 June 2010 |
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
PHILOSOPHY OF PHOTOGRAPHING PEOPLEAs i glance over some of the photos i took for lennie's wedding, what strikes me is a philosophical query over the following: what makes a photograph containing people good? it has always been clear to me that a photo lennie thinks is nice may not be nice to chin peow, and vice versa... and any photos eventually used will of course have to pass both acid tests. but another sure thing is that the photographs deemed nice by this photographer may or may not also pass the acid test. so as i consider these things, i arrive at a larger question... what criteria can we use to determine whether a photograph containing people is a "good photograph". is it even feasible to consider this? i think it is. so let's get right into it. coming from a background of film analysis and video production, i am naturally one to look for the technical and signifying aspects of a photograph. regarding the former, i refer to things such as the composition, the focus, the lighting, the amount of light, the shutter speed, the works. as for the latter, i am talking about what stories the photos tell. semiotic students won't need introduction to this... but this is roughly what i mean. if i shoot the bride and groom with their parents in the foreground, the story it tells is one about generations. it's a completely different story compared to, say, the bride and groom with their ring boxes in the foreground - which would be a story about commitment. someone from a fashion background, will of course, look at differnt things. they'll be looking at how the subjects look. of course, this is important to me, but you and i both know how subjective the matter of looks is. so it goes beyond fashion photography to say that it is an essential ingredient that the subjects look good - not just to the one taking, but to the ones taken. i know that technique and symbols are important in all good photography. it's what wins awards and distinguishes holiday photos from professional ones. but when photographing people for people, one has to consider this grey and subjective area. for photography of people to have any real relevance, there must surely be an interaction between the photographer and the photograph with the photographed. there has to exist a common consensus with regards to standards of beauty. if you remove this criteria then photographing people simply becomes a hobby, a pursuit of art on the part of the photographer... syok sendiri. for it to have real and interactive meaning, it must always take into consideration how the photographed feels about the given piece of art. i guess there'll be shots of lennie and chin peow i love that one of them doesn't like so much because of the way they smiled. and likewise, there'll be shots that they'll love but i won't so much because of some blurred jo in the background or a wrong highlight on one of their cheeks. it's a humbling process and a great learning curve to photograph people for people. as you can see, i'm finding out a lot. Labels: philosophy Genusfrog [
6:24 am ]
 
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home