Gee.. My first post
I have put off really getting into posting on a website. I don't know why. I guess I really wanted to do more than I knew how to do and I had not listened enough to my daughter to learn how. I am trying to post a photo of a barn near Highlands, NC... It is my first attempt. Let's see how well I do.
I am reading a book about how the eye sees and the mind makes our sense of that. I have, for a long time, wanted to create things that give a sense of awe and I don't know that my paintings quite do that yet. I try to find that middle ground between design and image; between color and contrast; depth and surface.
We learn to take our perceptions to new levels as we experience TV, movies and driving. We take on video games and see ourselves as a character while looking down on the character from an Ariel view. What's to say we can't invent new ways of interpreting our sight into new perceptions of the world around us? I once took two photos of some pottery on a table and on a mantle behind the table. I shot them like a stereoscope. But with a wide angle lens and a prism that took out the middle of the image. Looking at them as I would a stereoscope took some time to adjust, but I was able to create a single image with a little bit of back & forth shifting of the missing parts. Someone could see the world this way and fill in the information from one eye missing just as we all fill in the blind spot that we have in each eye. I also got one of those cheap cameras that took four sequential photos on each normal 35 mm frame. I could look at many of those steroscopically and there would be a flash back & forth of the parts that moved from one image to the next. Is this not another way to represent motion in a somewhat more real sense than the blur of a single frame image. What would happen if you stereoscoped a movie so that the frames went from, say left to right, in that an image to your left eye then to your right eye and kept feeding the next one to the left and the left one to the right. How would the motion seem to the viewer?
Well, off to where I lie in bed and try to breathe and sleep at the same time.
I am reading a book about how the eye sees and the mind makes our sense of that. I have, for a long time, wanted to create things that give a sense of awe and I don't know that my paintings quite do that yet. I try to find that middle ground between design and image; between color and contrast; depth and surface.
We learn to take our perceptions to new levels as we experience TV, movies and driving. We take on video games and see ourselves as a character while looking down on the character from an Ariel view. What's to say we can't invent new ways of interpreting our sight into new perceptions of the world around us? I once took two photos of some pottery on a table and on a mantle behind the table. I shot them like a stereoscope. But with a wide angle lens and a prism that took out the middle of the image. Looking at them as I would a stereoscope took some time to adjust, but I was able to create a single image with a little bit of back & forth shifting of the missing parts. Someone could see the world this way and fill in the information from one eye missing just as we all fill in the blind spot that we have in each eye. I also got one of those cheap cameras that took four sequential photos on each normal 35 mm frame. I could look at many of those steroscopically and there would be a flash back & forth of the parts that moved from one image to the next. Is this not another way to represent motion in a somewhat more real sense than the blur of a single frame image. What would happen if you stereoscoped a movie so that the frames went from, say left to right, in that an image to your left eye then to your right eye and kept feeding the next one to the left and the left one to the right. How would the motion seem to the viewer?
Well, off to where I lie in bed and try to breathe and sleep at the same time.
posted by Marion at 11:40 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home