Comments for Signapse

Comment on Cook Inlet panorama : pictures and numbers by doug

doug — Thu, 08 May 2008 10:03:10 +0000

Puitrar - thanks very much for the comment. “ask for the insight to see it differently” - if I have a job description I guess I’m in the “see it differently” business.

How did you arrive at my blog ?

Right at the moment I’m also getting ready for the Alaska project (packing brushes, etc etc.) but had a really interesting conversation over the weekend with someone who is writing a book about patterns. Given that he had worked with Keith Critchlow and met Buckminster Fuller I’m very excited to see how that develops. I’ll also report back on the challenge to draw in parallel .. More later - please keep in touch.

Comment on Cook Inlet panorama : pictures and numbers by Piutrar

Piutrar — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:50:23 +0000

I love the vibrations of numbers and hence the textures they are, the semiotics can also be defined in terms of numbers as all energy vibrates and communicates with us.
Sinister only becomes sinister in your mind caused by a negative or positive take on the the vibration it makes for you. I’m a lefty too.
You can wire your mind to draw in parallel. You are living in a linear world where you have given yourself the limitation to limit yourself to those three dimensions. Take a quantum step and ask for the insight to see it differently.
Newton, Da Vinci, Einstein, Mozart, Beethoven, Eddison, Picasso all did…

Comment on Cook Inlet panorama : pictures and numbers by doug

doug — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:25:16 +0000

I love the way you put religion and semiotics together to argue it out while the rest of us don’t have to listen. However, as a lefty I would like to take issue with your pejorative use of the word sinister. Ask Jimi and Leonardo (not diCaprio).

Comment on Cook Inlet panorama : pictures and numbers by steve

steve — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:06:46 +0000

Maybe we ignore textures so much because we are pattern-seeking animals (hence the love affair with ’seeming’). We constantly try to make sense of the chaos of information around us. This makes us see faces in fires and animals in clouds and, at the sinister end of the spectrum, leads to religion and semiotics.

Our brains are hard-wired to extract meaning from confluences of lines & colours. We may only see surface when our normal processing is disrupted or yields insufficient data (eg, the image is too abstract) and the mind seeks additional information. Perhaps also when our normal information-gathering routines are disrupted, such as your vertical panoramas.

Comment on Cook Inlet panorama : pictures and numbers by doug

doug — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:33:06 +0000

Surfaces and textures - that’s an interestingly counter intuitive place to start talking about photography.

Seems to me that photography and painting often share the same unrequited love affair with ’seeming’ which is a form of denial about the painted or photographic surface. I’d be really interested to be kept in touch with this work you are doing.

For me the starting point is lenses rather than the photographic emulsion. Lenses go back to Vermeer and beyond and have presented strong magnetic fields that have sometimes given dodgy readings on the painters own compass.

Anyway - I’ll report back on progress in Anchorage in the blog.

Comment on Cook Inlet panorama : pictures and numbers by James Elkins

James Elkins — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:10:14 +0000

Hi,

Thanks for that. I’m working now on a companion book, “What Photography Is.” Of course it’s nothing about oil, but it is about textures, because photographs also have those. And photographs have surfaces, although most people ignore them…

Comment on Panoramas : the difference between DNA and a love letter by doug

doug — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:51:06 +0000

Hey Gumbo - thanks for visiting - do you remember the Regional Seat of Government being built on Wanstead FLats ? I also remember something fortified being built in the sewage farm by Wanstead Park. Not sure how to research this stuff though.

Comment on Panoramas : the difference between DNA and a love letter by Gum

Gum — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 08:20:59 +0000

Nice one Dougie, you intellectual old bugger.

If there is a big sky you can see people coming from a long way off. Its a different kind of safety

Mind you you can see your enemies coming on Wanstead Flats.
Unless they wriggle on their tummies.

Great website.

Comment on Panoramas : the difference between DNA and a love letter by doug

doug — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:31:51 +0000

Thanks for checking the site - yes lets talk soon, I’ve started some new work which is going sortof ok .. watch this space. Talk soon my dear friend

Comment on Panoramas : the difference between DNA and a love letter by Patricia Price

Patricia Price — Fri, 28 Mar 2008 16:55:51 +0000

Just replying to this to see how it works. The site looks great and I’d love a chat.

Patricia

Comment on Bodies changed into new forms by doug

doug — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:59:48 +0000

No - but will check. I really like his painting, he came in for an afternoon at Gainsborough’s House print workshop when I was working there in Sudbury. I’ll check it out and post something on the blog. Thanks, my Philosophical Best Friend.

Comment on Bodies changed into new forms by shug

shug — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 16:06:43 +0000

Have you seen Scottish artist John Bellany’s Bestiary?

Comment on Panoramas : the difference between DNA and a love letter by doug

doug — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:39:02 +0000

I really do agree about verbal nonsense about visual art. There is far too much of it.

Comment on Panoramas : the difference between DNA and a love letter by Graham Portlock

Graham Portlock — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 17:34:07 +0000

Whilst I find this an interesting analysis and basically agree with the sentiments expressed, I am always unsettled when an image is intellectualised - in my opinion ‘artspeak’ belongs on public funding application forms only….

I want an image to haunt me and to persistently draw my attention so that I develop my own emotional responses over a period of time. I need it to be so enigmatic/ambiguous/mysterious or simply stunningly strong or beautiful, that no words are needed - otherwise I’d buy a book!!

I liked your Orford Ness - although, due to its relatively small scale, I did find it difficult not to be distracted within the gallery space - it would be great if you had the luxury of being able to display it alone in the centre of an empty dark room……

Comment on New work : are we there yet ? by doug

doug — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 18:51:24 +0000

Hi - yes it is, I’ll post the contact and access information from the back of their flyer.