My pareidolia knows no bounds.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />You also have an original copy which is the real art. With digital there is no original so there is really no art. Digital's main advantage is the cost is virtually non-existent (once you have the camera) so you can shoot with no monetary concern.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Yes, I understand what you're saying about the "original" negative. To this day, I still have the negatives from when I studied electron microscopy over 20 years ago. Some of them took over a month of sample preparation, weeks of squeezing time on one of the microscopes, just to get one good negative. They're worth money to the students who came after me, but somehow I just never could bring myself to do that.

I would disagree slighlty though, that there is no original with digital. As long as there is a date and time stamp, you could prove that the file originated with you, if you had to. While it's true, that digital images are easier to tamper with (a subject that has come up frequently on these boards, regarding the Mars images), it is still possible to figure out if they have been tampered with. For instance, suppose someone got a copy of the original file, and forged the timestamp, that could be detected. The same is true if someone tried to steal parts of an image, by say copying a block of pixel grayscale values, to create a new image. If the motivation was there, one could show (prove) they have an original that predates all subsequent attempts to "purloin" it. True, it's a little more esoteric an original than a negative, but it's still an original, in my opinion. Unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning about having an original.

You're definitely right about the cost of the pictures, though. Huge difference (100%, I guess).



rd

By the way Fred, if you get a chance take a look at the Faces from the Chasmas topic on this board, under Artificial Structures on Mars forum. There's alot of good Martian Art and/or pareidolia there.

rd

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />Can't write any more or the monetary flow will delete my subversive/iconoclastic ways from this site as happened previously when i tried to fulfill the title "My pareidolia knows no bounds." My question is who is the real nut case me or the warrior/money-worshiping world. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">In all fairness, you have to remember that this is a science website. Before I started this topic, I ran the idea by Tom, because I knew it was somewhat of a stretch. I wasn't really sure if it would fly or not, but Tom was kind enough to agree with me that there was room for this discussion on the "Artificial Structures on Mars" forum, in that the subject of pareidolia comes up quite frequently. But they do have a right to keep it in certain bounds.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">yet we all have nothing better to do than argue whether there are man made/natural or random formed men on mars<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I would think this is right down your alley. Think about the ramifications for a second. If the images are real art, and not pareidolia, than that means that an ancient civilization, not unlike us, populated (or visited) Mars over 3 million years ago. That's a mind blowing concept and well worth discussing, regardless of which side of the debate you take. It also ties in nicely with Tom's Exploding Planet Hypothesis (EPH) which can be found on his home page.



rd

The thing that makes an origianl is that it can not be duplicated. There is always loss. No matter what the time/date imprint on a digital file is it can be duplicated ad infinitum without loss. This is why i and others have said that with digital you have no original/no art. There is art in and to everything and in no way do i mean to put down a digital file let's say, of the "last supper" in pareidolic shadow form, i would love one, but there is still no original that can be distinguished from any copy. A negative is as close as one can get to an original in photography. Even an analog print is never an original, even if it's the first time an images was printed from that negative. A negative can not be duplicated and therein lies it's art/intrincic beauty/value.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pareidoliac</i>
<br />The thing that makes an origianl is that it can not be duplicated. There is always loss. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Ah yes! I forgot about that part. Good point. So, I was misinterpreting your meaning of "original".

rd

Richard- Science? You must mean "old time science" before quantum physics. i was under the impression that Werner Heisenberg the great quantum physicist debunked that myth a long time ago. He showed how the observer alters the result of what he views which anihilates objectivity and therefore what you call " science." One must also use intuition. David Bohm, another great quantum physicist showed how the universe is in each particle as each particle is in the universe, in a hologramatic manner. This is the next step after "science." "Science" is just the new replacement for the old religious methology. Science is just a word. One can not point to it, or 2 of anything. Things are sacred, not numbers and words. It only holds up on the mechanical level and holds us down to getting where we are going. There are no bounds except those that men make for their own agrandisement. There is no separation between each of us and the universe, and i feel like i'm back in kindergarten that i knew was a crock from day one. Take out your red pencil boys, where's my ritalin? Have you no sense of humor or humanity/sensuality/emotion/art/sociality/philosophy/enlightenment? "Science" is not some sterile method. It is part of the WHOLE. i notice you don't delete my referring to myself as a "nut case." Is that part of your science ? It's all science, or none of it is. As Ali G says "keep it real."