To be quite blunt I really find that the first article "Kino-eye" to be a bit pedantic. Perhaps that stems from it being so defiant similar to many other previous readings but it does make a rather interesting point as the tirade drags on. A simple idea is that the camera is a more accurate than the human eye. The reason why lies in the cameras inherent tendency to not brand anything it views or captures. A camera doesn't have a bias it merely performs a function and shows a form in a most vulnerable and raw way.
We upon viewing something unconsciously brand it as being something good or bad, something we like or dislike etc. a camera has no such ego it merely reports what it captures. A camera is detached from what it sees, whereas we are all to caught up in the aesthetics of what we view and attached to the various objects and forms we see.
These articles begged me to ask the question if a camera very similar in structure and function of a human eye is able to see these images in such a pure way, is that something we as humans upon breaking our own mental conditioning can view?
The answer to my own question is a clear cut yes. The most intellectual men of our times from artists and scientists to saints and prophets all asked the same things and were able to see whatever it was that they wished to view in such a pure form. Working with that spark of consciousness that enlivens us all.
I really appreciate these articles attempt at highlighting the true subtle concept of mind and eye being two things that we as normal everyday men and women have yet to tap into. what I find to be even more profound is in this world we live in where sedentary behavior is the end goal we have used our intellect to create a device such as a camera to do something we have the ability to do yet are to distracted and lazy to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment