A synthetic mind
Like any medium of self expression, whether it’s painting, drawing, playing an instrument…photography is a language, a way of expressing one’s feelings about a situation or a moment, and ultimately being able to encapsulate a story. But does it really matter the means by which we tell that story? Or did technology overshadow the true essence of storytelling? Today, almost any tool is at our disposal in which to tell that story. Everything lies at our finger tips. Does it really matter what filter one uses? Or the type of camera? It’s up to you to discover your tool, your means of capturing a moment and ultimately telling your own story. Koci’s excerpt taps right into that grey zone, where emotion becomes veracity and technique irrelevant. It opens the door to new possibilities and sheds away all the artificial constructs.
“What’s done in time, time respects it”
Richard Koci Hernandez
Enjoy.
D.
3 Responses to “A synthetic mind”
Leave a Reply
You’re all heart, Koci! I have deep respect and gratitude for what you have shared here, for how you articulated a feeling that I’m sure many of us hold. I feel it is a defense of freedom and working from the heart. Thank you – Shaun
Mattias says: Interesting movie, thanks for posting. The argument in the movie for embracing the tools of the day in which we live, as long as they give us the result that we want, and concentrate in the image is a very attractive argument. What is not good about changing with the times and being in the present? However, in the end the argument falls apart when time outside of the now is considered. Koci talks about the loss of the visible passing of time when we have digital image files instead of photographic prints. So to make up for this he wants to introduce the end characteristics of an ageing print through the use of digital filters. I think that the beauty comes not from, already at the outset, introducing the end resultat of an object that has had a “life”. The beauty of the traces of the passage of time, in a photographic print, a tree, a ceramic bowl or a human face is that the passage of time is visibly inherent in the object. And as long as the object exists there is no end result, more traces will be added to the object. That is the beauty of photographic prints and older technology. Digital images are not objects and can not age with grace. It is all about now. When the files get old they get corrupted and/or disappear. Poof gone. For the argument to hold it is necessary to accept the medium and its relation to time on its own terms. Digital imaging is now. Files are not tangible. The philosophical conclusion is that digital images more than images ever before represent fleeting moments in time. Poof and the images and life are gone. Can Westerners, as many East Asians already have, accept this experience of time passing as beautiful, or is it still only the end result that matters? Which in the context of life obviously is death, rather than a finely aged photographic print.
When I print a photo it is just as tangible as, say when my grandfather did 50 years ago. When it ages, it ages. When my digital file…saved in three different places…disappears, I still have it two other places as contrasted with the lost negatives from when I was younger. As an embracer of this technology and a fan of the digital darkroom, I can work faster, more accurately, cheaper, and print better than I used to do. The magic of the darkroom and the romance of sucking in chemicals aside, I now carry my phone everywhere and thus my camera as well, never having that moment of witnessing the photographic event of my lifetime with empty hands and my cameras safely tucked away at home. I remember studying some images by the early masters…rough, sometimes out of focus, sometimes with high grain and very contrasty and learning that it is the subject and the style of capturing it. I love learning my instrument and working with it as best it and I can manage…and given the season, I say, as Mr. Dickens did so many years ago (wish that he had my iPhone to photograph the old London at night as he strolled the city), God Bless It!
You’re all heart, Koci! I have deep respect and gratitude for what you have shared here, for how you articulated a feeling that I’m sure many of us hold. I feel it is a defense of freedom and working from the heart. Thank you – Shaun
Interesting movie, thanks for posting. The argument in the movie for embracing the tools of the day in which we live, as long as they give us the result that we want, and concentrate in the image is a very attractive argument. What is not good about changing with the times and being in the present? However, in the end the argument falls apart when time outside of the now is considered. Koci talks about the loss of the visible passing of time when we have digital image files instead of photographic prints. So to make up for this he wants to introduce the end characteristics of an ageing print through the use of digital filters. I think that the beauty comes not from, already at the outset, introducing the end resultat of an object that has had a “life”. The beauty of the traces of the passage of time, in a photographic print, a tree, a ceramic bowl or a human face is that the passage of time is visibly inherent in the object. And as long as the object exists there is no end result, more traces will be added to the object. That is the beauty of photographic prints and older technology. Digital images are not objects and can not age with grace. It is all about now. When the files get old they get corrupted and/or disappear. Poof gone. For the argument to hold it is necessary to accept the medium and its relation to time on its own terms. Digital imaging is now. Files are not tangible. The philosophical conclusion is that digital images more than images ever before represent fleeting moments in time. Poof and the images and life are gone. Can Westerners, as many East Asians already have, accept this experience of time passing as beautiful, or is it still only the end result that matters? Which in the context of life obviously is death, rather than a finely aged photographic print.
When I print a photo it is just as tangible as, say when my grandfather did 50 years ago. When it ages, it ages. When my digital file…saved in three different places…disappears, I still have it two other places as contrasted with the lost negatives from when I was younger. As an embracer of this technology and a fan of the digital darkroom, I can work faster, more accurately, cheaper, and print better than I used to do. The magic of the darkroom and the romance of sucking in chemicals aside, I now carry my phone everywhere and thus my camera as well, never having that moment of witnessing the photographic event of my lifetime with empty hands and my cameras safely tucked away at home. I remember studying some images by the early masters…rough, sometimes out of focus, sometimes with high grain and very contrasty and learning that it is the subject and the style of capturing it. I love learning my instrument and working with it as best it and I can manage…and given the season, I say, as Mr. Dickens did so many years ago (wish that he had my iPhone to photograph the old London at night as he strolled the city), God Bless It!