I hear the size of your heart is the size of your fist.

————————————————————————————————-

Took this photo in my mom’s office yesterday. I went there partially because I get to eat amazing food at places near her office. However, I am not supposed to be busy taking photos like that. Pretty glad with how the original photo turned out. And of course, this isn’t a true representation of my fist. I never looked well upon photo-editing softwares and never used them for purposes other than adjusting brightness and contrast and B&W conversions. This is the first time I’ve ‘exploited’ it for ‘artistic’ purposes. I felt a little uncomfortable editing my photo like that. I guess it’s because this changes the actual proportions of the picture.

Am I uncomfortable because it is not representational anymore? My gut says: in a way. But then, adjusting brightness and contrast etc. makes it un-representational too. And furthermore, the lenses of the camera in itself makes it all un-representational in the strict sense. And furtherfurthermore, speaking of representation in the strictest sense, the image seen in our eyes is not strictly representational of the ‘real’ object seen. And then again, why the hell would I want it to be representational anyway?

(I’m bored and I think I need to exercise my brain a little (though not to the extent of making a perfect argument or something), no matter how meagre the effort or result is, so pardon me for the unproductive banter which I type stream-of-consciously <— is there an adverb for this?)

But no, of course I am not that particular about it being representational at all. I think I’m very fine with editing of all sorts unless they start to look ‘unnatural’— photographically speaking. For example, HDR photos aren’t ‘natural’ (http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=HDR&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1280&bih=685). I’m sorry but what are those people thinking when they apply HDR to photos?? I cannot, in the life of me, appreciate it. They make me nauseous. Heavily contrasted photos also violate something in me. Okay, this I must qualify— they only really violate something in me if the person behind it meant to pass it off as photography. So I think I was uncomfortable with the photo at first because I was doubting whether it looked ‘unnatural’ or not. But I asked around and 2-1 preferred the one that has been ‘tampered’ with.

I was also about to comment on something before I got caught up with discussing why I felt uncomfortable. I thought that editing it in this way brings me to something I have never done before. It’s crossing over a little to painting— it’s recreating. I think this occurred to me because when I was creating the swirls, the idea of swirls in themselves reminded me of Van Gogh though by no means I plead to it being a tribute to him or anything.

But about my stance on aesthetic issues, I am still unclear. But at the very basic level, I go with Kant that judgments of beauty are sensory, emotional and intellectual. I mostly cannot be bothered to think of my stance. It also goes well with my stance on religion as a pragmatic agnostic. I can’t be bothered with arguments because I think whether that higher power exists or not does not change the way we live or something (I included ‘or something’ because I don’t think I expressed my arguments accurately and did not make the effort to make it watertight but it is the main idea.). So, in the same way, I can still take photos the same way etc. with or without spending time to clarify what I think about stuff involving it.

Advertisements