On Sun, 01 May 2005 22:26:01 -0400, Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom>
wrote:

>
>Oooo, good example!  That would mean an exceptional degree of empirical 
>information, but still, no matter how passive the artist's hand, via the 
>mind, it would introduce some regularity.  Meanwhile, the viewer, 
>knowing the picture was the product of an artist's hand, would demand 
>less in the way of empirical randomness before experiencing verite.
>
I think that's shown in the Impressionist movement, if I understand
you correctly.
This goes down the old "we see what we expect to see" road, which is
fascinating. IMHO Huxley (A) was on the right path when he said that
the mind is a reducing valve to the universe. It enables us to have an
understandable view of it.

>
>I assume you are aware of this:
>http://www.koopfilms.com/hockney/

I saw it when it was first broadcast in the UK. Hence the mention of
the camera obscura.

Regards
        Stephen

Post a reply to this message