Although a small disagreement happened today not allowing the full exposure of my obvious progress made in the arts and techniques of photography, I hope the one above will do it for the time being.
In fact, it can be considered a step forward to think, even if it doesn’t show yet, the possibility of exchanging the picturing of an item for the picturing of a concept, a notion, thing that necessarily must make photography approach from arts.
I must admit that I felt a little bit of shame for the quality of the pictures I didn’t esteem at the height of the fun I had had during the Olympics watching Synchronized Swimming, fun that even pushed me to stay in front of TV until late at night, when it was finally shown, usually quite at the end of the program and I, half sleeping, could not but wake up again when what I called the ‘ducks’ appeared on the screen again.
In spite of the lack of quality of the pictures (the camera burns the blue of the water, making it appear yellowish, taking away great parts of the esthetical enchantment produced by the usual deep blue of the water) I could state that at least a few had taken the right direction all alone by themselves, as different colours, not taking a determined shape, were forming a ‘compound’ that seemed to show similarity with French impressionism, allowing the study of the general visual impression as transmitting a ‘whole impression’.
What is depicted is of little importance: important becomes the print it leaves on the mind associating itself eventually to other impressions, which will wake up a feeling. Of harmony, perhaps, or of fun, it may remind you of ‘ducks’, too, or other.
Of course it is of importance to make the difference between what is a subjective impression and what objectively may derive from a concept: the harmony of an activity is not the fun you have watching it. Perhaps the one is related to the other, but in order to avoid fusions it is perhaps of interest to make a careful distinction.
As it was the first time I was deliberately leaving a depicted object in order to try synthesizing a more intellectual item (concept) or a more subjective impression, a whole lot of different elements got happily confused. It’s true that I liked the logo of Olympics because it was blue, too, and everything was blue, and all in all, it gave a horribly beautiful whole.
I would have kept 4 pictures for myself, perhaps 5, because they were making the photography get near to a more artistic concept, but even these 4 or 5 did not give back my fun while watching Synchronized Swimming late at night. Sometimes it is much later that you understand what you are doing yourself, thus getting a clearer idea of the formal patterns you are using in order to do something. I thus decided to leave them all there and come back to it later: as the memory of the subjective impression I had had then was moving the pictures around, I guessed something of it must have staid in the chosen pictures and the general order and show at the end. I would come back to it later.
I had though had the time to analyze in depth what both Anastasias understood under synchronized swimming and concluded that the insertion of the synchronized desynchronized was at the origin of their excellence. Difficult to copy, anyhow. And spent a moment figuring out what a conversation among ducks could be and concluded after a while that necessarily one Anastasia must say: “That she was always inside of time and the other was doing everything wrong,” to which the other Anastasia did never give an answer to, trying though desperately to keep the time tables, which, as general disposition, made her always be late anyhow, thus giving birth to the most harmonic desynchronization on earth.
Ducks do always tell lies, I had concluded a long time ago, because German say ‘lies have short legs’ and ducks have short legs and consequently ducks tell always lies. If you tell lies say 22 because 22 makes two ducks talking to each other. Perhaps I was thinking of my bad joke every time I saw the other ducks appear on the screen, asking myself whether they had really managed to get into the deepest psychology of ducks. To my greatest satisfaction both Anastasia had managed to and this I had to consider an enormous progress inside of the general attempt of integration of animal’s world in a human social context. How beautiful ducks are, finally.
After enquiry, it was stated that even black swans with red mouths said themselves – and they are quite snob – satisfied with their human representatives. And chose the accompanying songs, they said ‘beautiful enough’.
They rather insisted on this that I should quicken up my process of learning technically and conceptually, find means to make the yellowish disappear (it’s not impossible) and make the difference between objective harmony and subjective well being.
Going from one thing to the other, I developped the idea of an extraordinay business that would be of no one’s convenience except of those interested in buying, that took the following aspect: “You get your own private and particular Nadia Comaneci picture, whose electronic chip is destroyed a little later.” This allowed the showing of many pictures as we all have different tastes. A nice excuse in order to hide away the conceptual weakness of the whole, by the way, but commerce should be useful, too, from time to time.
(I usually don’t sell. – I mean, I’ve never sold anything.)
I’m honest. My thought did really arise from the conceptual weakness and filled in a hole I really intended to fill in later. But. But.
Could I not but remember after all my usual anger with photographers, who, according to my own patterns of understanding, take everything ready and don’t even share their thus acquired goods? Look at my poor ducks: years and years of training and silent attempts to understand the ducks world and the photographer arises and makes a click that may be worth a few hundreds while the ducks in question are still desperately searching for sponsors.
According to Spanish more or less tacitely established ethical rules (quite forgotten in the meantime), the photographer has no permission to show a picture without the permission of the concerned. And permission was usually granted in exchange for a copy of the picture the depicted had the right to use as he liked. And this concerning even people who were not publicly known, as the fact of taking a picture of someone was considered ‘interference in private space’. I have the right to even when I’m walking down the street.
So many rights reserved and intellectual rights that do actually walk on other people’s rights was one thing that had started to make me horribly nervous and finally I concluded: ‘that if it is of common use to be allowed taking pictures and publishing them without the explicite permission of the one depicted or of the owner of the depicted object’, then, ‘it must be legal to take pictures of pictures, videos or movies’ as long as this doesn’t happen inside of a public or private space having reserved rights for itself.’
The fact of altering a picture makes that the picture becomes the property of the original owner according to most general law, thing I esteem personally abusing, as a painter can’t claim for the property of the picture of his painting, nor does a reproduction of a painting as painting owe rights to the original painter. Conclusion: the picture of a picture is my property and thus the picture of a video and consequently I have the right to sell.
I had already planned my shop as internet page promising all sorts of singular items, that could be obtained even under request, profiting of the very large legislation of Ecuador on these matters. (Hell is not only full of good intentions but also of bad ones, as bad intentions can sometimes help in order to clear up horribly difficult legal questions and the fact of not making them real may make you end up in the underworld, too. – I never made the slightest movement towards that, either.)
While I was thus having a horrible fun thinking how wicked you could become if ever of need, time had come to confront myself to the evidence the world hadn’t progressed as quickly as I inside of the general questioning on rights reserved as today the second video, that should be used in order to show another step made forward inside of the attempt to give an image to a determined concept, was brutally stopped by an e-mail of Youtube saying my video had been removed because some ‘copyright holders’ did not agree with its being published.
Copyright holders of what? I ask myself. Of my pictures? The contents of the video is fully mine as all pictures have been taken by myself, I claim. It’s true that I had become very careful in the meantime and knowing that music is copyrighted all over except here for private use, I intended to stop the material being used elsewhere than by myself. You become egotitistic if you make such efforts to understand ducks. I don’t sell videos. If you become very, very exact with law of the country, I could even put someone else’s material for private purposes into the video. Thing I don’t like: should strain on intellectual questionings and not on barbarian misuse of other people’s property.
But what. Yesterday I was still reluctant concerning my possible analysis on CSI Miami and Gray’s Anatomy I wanted to make in order to see whether it was finally possible to put a concept into a few pictures. If they do so very much insist on unexisting rights, does this not give you all freedom to become wicked precisely because they were wicked before you?
Hm.
Do I really want to become wicked? And if yes, who with?
I sell for whoever interested a not registered copy of Bach’s Brandenburger Konzerte. It is worth an enormous lot and ended up in my hands the most unusual of ways, which by the way, is legal, too. It’s worth a lot because contrary to other countries Germany does not give free intellectual property after two or three generations (depending on country) but keeps it for companies that have the exclusive right to sell them. The notes. Yes. The right to play it somewhere. The registrations. Everything. Quite abusing, too.
I don’t know who made the mistake but it is a fact that a radio orchestre of the Czech Republic obtained the rights to play it, the older version, with ancient instruments and gave it away for free download to i-pod. (I didn’t know what an i-pod was.) The free download for an i-pod could though be downloaded through Windows Media Player into the computer, too. Without security. There it is, the poor, in Ecuador where German law does not apply. Can I sell it? Logically, yes.
Why then deviate my wickedness towards Germany and not towards Michael Caan, for example, thing that is all in all thinkable? Because it can’t be but German to presume that copyright extends itself towards the contents of the contents of a picture. Ola dika mas, the Greek says (everything is ours). Whatever can be depicted is mine and whatever is copyrighted is mine, too, even when it is depicted by someone else.
Consequently I sell the Brandeburger Konzerte, see whether they learn once to respect other nation’s legislations.
What happens in the meantime with CSI Miami and Gray’s Anatomy? Do I become wicked, too? Had I the intention of, finally, and if not, should I make use of artificial and accidental coincidences in order to alter my original idea? No.
But that’s what all is about. I may think CSI Miami interesting for reasons that may be hold for negative by those concerned. My deepest analysis that is just a step towards the putting into image of a concept, may be considered an ‘attack’. Such a horror. (I’m not of those who esteem the freedom of speech allows you saying whatever but it’s obvious, too, that the ‘whatever’ depends on interpretation.)
That was my dilemma, yesterday.
Today my dilemma has disappeared as I can bluntly say that the fact of staying under German influence does not allow so many considerations with those involved.
The general subject to be dealt with was ‘science under the microscope of affective life’ and in fact, was using a double angle of distortion: Hollywood or whoever responsible for the serial makes itself an ‘image’ of a general situation it makes the serial of, and ‘I’ analyze the subjective apprehension of those in order to bridge to general scientific behaviour. Is there any kind of relationship with reality? Is the question. Was. Well, is still, even without video.
It’s true that then (I say: hospitals, but it’s nothing but short for ‘according to the serial’) hospitals and concretely surgeons tend to violate regulations much more often than the police. At least in what concerns affective outbursts. Forbidden as well here as there as interaction among collegues, they rarely happen in the police. Only CSI las Vegas shows such a happening that is investigated by the Inner Affairs Office (Perhaps not well translated) and leads to the leaving of the police woman. Indirectly. But she leaves. CSI Miami shows a lot of flirting around and the question mark is put whether the FBI agent or the former covered agent is to be considered a collegue still, and thus, for the time being (here) the Inner Affairs Office has not been asked for help.
It’s not that the affective situation looks good. Divorced, alone, with temporary love affairs of superficial nature it is though determined that the fact of paying a prostitute is not forbidden even you are an officer, although (moral implication) the fact you forget your identification at her place is blameworthy thing that usually happens (could be implied) if you give in to such random love experiences. Better avoid, thus, even, yes, even if it is not forbidden.
It can be stated that those having higher moral criteria (usually women) have less problems with the Inner Affairs Office for other reasons, too. If one looses his identification and the other is caught gambling illegally, women will suffer perhaps of affective outbursts (distribution of identification papers for a man involved in paedophilia), but will have less trouble with random illegal activity. Very moral: affective stability seems to warrant for ethic behaviour and evaluation of legal situations.
It’s not that it is perfect, but nothing is perfect in a common mortal’s life.
That was the police. Hospitals have no Inner Affair Office. And the poor director of the hospital has been himself caught in clear adultery. With a surgeon, on top. The legal situation is not very clear, actually: forbidden is a relationship of a doctor with a patient and the relationship of a ‘student’ with a doctor. If relationships among surgeons are allowed is not defined, as if it were some kind of tacit ethical disposition. Adultery is forbidden though, outside of the hospital.
There are 6 students and a few surgeons. Three, actually, Dr Burke, the so called ‘nazi’ and Dr Shepard, who has arrived later. The wife of Mr Shepard arrives later, surgeon for children. Dr Shepard is involved with daughter Gray (whose mother had the love affair with the director) and Dr Burke has a more or les stable love affair with the student of Chinese origin. Dr Shepard had left New York because his wife had an affair with his best friend and his wife will join him in order to save her marriage, thing that will show impossible because of the love affair started before with daughter Gray. Another student, a girl, gets involved with a patient after a short flirt with a male student, who, by the way had contagiated siphilis to a nurse who was together with George, who thus was contagiated, too, among many others. George, who is in love with daughter Gray, gets involved after having finished with the nurse with a doctor of South American origins, but can’t assume living with her after a little time.
It’s not an accident that the girl who gets involved with a patient has paid off her lend for studies taking pictures for underwear. I mean, perhaps the love story is an accident but in any case not the fact that she could be said responsible for a murder in first degree. The way she jumps logically through the justification: she’s just cutting the tubes in order for him to get a new heart is exactly the same you may justify a random moral activity in order to pay off studies. The parallel in thought shows clearly how dangerous such activities can be.
While daughter Gray is now confronted to the fact of having to choose between Dr Shepard and a vet who has appeared while Shepards were still trying to arrange his marriage, Mrs Shepard ask herself whether she is beautiful still and gives in to the presence of the former lover for, she says, ‘service in sexual satisfaction’, thing I understood as being a very indirect mean to call daughter Gray a whore, but that’s just a question of interpretation. In any case it made her appears as highly sympathetic to my eyes, thing I couldn’t say for the rest.
Except for the so called ‘nazi’, a black woman who seems to derive her firmness from the fact that she is … happily married. Yes, without adulteries. She has even had a child lately (here) and looses parts of her usual harsh judgement on violation of regulations because of this lately arisen fact, she has to embed into her former structures of behaviour.
For the time being, three of the main actors have landed in a hotel: Mrs Shepard, the director who has been thrown out by his wife and the South American lover of George.
Make the difference between an aspirin and paracetamol?
The ‘nazi’ may.
See the difference? While clearly appears in the police that the murder is the murder there where even officers may be accused of crime, I still don’t know whether Mr Shepard has not made up a heart disease in order to get a few thousands of dolars for the hospital.
Both deal with science from different aproaches and both seem to arrive in the depth to the same conclusion: the less affective stability is warranted, the less reliable a whole appears to the eyes of a neutral observer. Whether this affects real hospitals, is difficult to say. But certainly there are others whose direction is not caught in personal affective dilemma.
This is a derived concept that may be given a series of images. Don’t say the idea has anything to do with the underlying principle of CSI Miami or Gray’s Anatomy …
(Finally the video was enabled. Allegedly the problem was the music – my way of protecting my property – so that it was apparently enough to change it. Better, perhaps. Shall this imply I won’t sell the Brandenburger Konzerte? Spaniards say ‘a barking dog doesn’t bite …’)
_admina_
Responder