Letter to Marthinus-an update
Kia ora tatou:
The response to the camera Club post has been astounding. On Tuesday the site took 1600 hits, somewhat of a record! Many thanks to those of you who found the time to take up my 200 word challenge and share your thoughts.
You may want to cross over and check out the latest instalment of Letter to Marthinus. He has well and truly power-served the ball into my half of the court!
Lastly, I have been looking for a logo for the shoutout posts. This one, a sheep in wolf’s clothing, seems somehow appropriate…..
Ka kite ano
March 31st, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Tony: I just love the logo for “Shout Out”. Appropriate? Mmmmmm, yes, when I think about it.
I did have trouble finding “Letter to Marthinus - an update”, though. No “(more…)” to click on and none of the links that I thought would take me there did… Oh, silly me! There it is, where I should have expected it, in “Letter to Marthinus” in the blue bar just above the top post. Another case of not seeing something in front of my nose.
Marthinus has come up with some more interesting ideas to think about, just as I was considering giving my brain a rest. Oh well, I guess if I didn’t exercise them the little grey cells might atrophy. I’m off to consider what he and you have both said…
April 6th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Marthinus: you’ve written some extremely thoughtful things here and I’m still thinking about most of them. The quote from John Loerngard, for instance. I’ve been asking myself why a Ming vase can be beautiful because it is well-designed and well-made when this isn’t necessarily true of a photograph. What has a Ming vase got that a photograph that is only well-designed and well-made hasn’t? Is there a connection with age? Would the Ming vase have survived and been treasured for several hunded years if, in fact, it hadn’t been beautiful? Is it anything to do with the fact that one exists in three dimensions, the other in two, or that one has been made directly by the hands and - literally - the feeling of its creator, whereas the other can be made only by means of a mechanism placed between the maker and the creation, so that it needs something extra? I think I agree with the quote, although I haven’t worked out why yet. I was thinking of it yesterday when I happened to see a piece of Ming pottery. (And yes, it was beautiful and intriguing.)
When I read that you always wonder if you are reading an artist’s work correctly, and then that you wonder if it matters as long as you interpret something that speaks to you, I was reminded of something Mary Jo said in the 10th comment for the March 26th post:
“A viewer looks at my photographic work.
What he sees belongs to him.
The image is I.
The viewer is seeing himself through a mirror held by my hands.”
Now I’m off to think about that in relation to what you have said.
This whole correspondence has been so very very interesting, and touches on such deep stuff that it’s difficult to respond quickly because it requires so much thinking about and absorbing first. It looks as if you and Tony might continue for a while - I hope so.
Best wishes,
Peregrina.