> Reminds me of the (stereotypically Japanese) tourist who is so busy
> taking pictures while he's on vacation that it's hard to imagine that
> he's actually seeing the things he's so busy documenting.
I dislike photo's for this very reason. Sometimes it's nice to look
back at the events, yes. But is it not better to first create an event
worth remembering, and then take the photo when it is ending?
> My maxim is that somebody else has already taken a much better picture
> of this building, vista, waterfall, or whatever than I will ever be able
> to capture with my feeble skills and equipment. If I ever want to see a
> picture of this photogentic attraction, I can buy a post card or call it
> up on the web. Better to just take a deep breath, let it out slow, and
> let the sensations of the moment make an impression on my
> consciousness.
The lens of the camera is a blinder, and the photo album nothing more
than canned memories. I am reminded of something Alan Moore said here a
while back:
> In my own ritual sacrifices, I have burned objects of meaning and
> significance to me, including the original to one of the magical
> drawings I sent you a while back. The idea is to sacrifice, in the
> conventional sense of "giving up," something which is of value to me.
> It is also to remove the physical component of the object, leaving only
> the memory or Idea Space presence of the object intact. In my terms,
> this removal of the physical component makes the object "sacred", i.e.,
> existing only on a level above the tangible and material world.
I do not think that photo's should serve as anything more than a simply
material way to trigger the memories. One photo of the event should be
enough. I am sure that the "essence" of the event can not be contained
in a photo in any event. Experience the event fully as it happens and
you will not need the photo at all. A vivid memory is far more
valuable.
ERiC