<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" 	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Kim HÃ¸ltermand</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lewism.org/2008/11/21/kim-h%c3%b8ltermand/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lewism.org/2008/11/21/kim-h%c3%b8ltermand/</link>
	<description>A Tectonic Notebook</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Sep 2010 05:32:23 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: lewism</title>
		<link>http://www.lewism.org/2008/11/21/kim-h%c3%b8ltermand/comment-page-1/#comment-62387</link>
		<dc:creator>lewism</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:09:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lewism.org/?p=464#comment-62387</guid>
		<description>Hah! We had a dark room at our Architecture School where we all learn&#039;t to develop our own photos how 20th Century! 

I think photography generally is daily becoming more like text and hypertext. In that it becomes links, dairy, commentary, memo, speach, fiction, and still maybe sometimes art. It is all of these things now wheras before like in cinema the shear impact of seeing a mirror to our reality gave it a kind of shiny gravitas which has almost worn off.

But like the great books, recognising truly great photography from the surrounding noise is hard, but maybe a worthwhile search non the less.

Oh and by the way have you read Errol Morriss&#039;piece in the NYT about the Roger Fenton photo &#039;&lt;a href=&quot;http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg-part-one/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;In The Valley Of Death&lt;/a&gt;&#039; it&#039;s one of the best bits of journalism I&#039;ve read...Ever.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hah! We had a dark room at our Architecture School where we all learn&#8217;t to develop our own photos how 20th Century! </p>
<p>I think photography generally is daily becoming more like text and hypertext. In that it becomes links, dairy, commentary, memo, speach, fiction, and still maybe sometimes art. It is all of these things now wheras before like in cinema the shear impact of seeing a mirror to our reality gave it a kind of shiny gravitas which has almost worn off.</p>
<p>But like the great books, recognising truly great photography from the surrounding noise is hard, but maybe a worthwhile search non the less.</p>
<p>Oh and by the way have you read Errol Morriss&#8217;piece in the NYT about the Roger Fenton photo &#8216;<a href="http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/25/which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg-part-one/" rel="nofollow">In The Valley Of Death</a>&#8216; it&#8217;s one of the best bits of journalism I&#8217;ve read&#8230;Ever.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://www.lewism.org/2008/11/21/kim-h%c3%b8ltermand/comment-page-1/#comment-61906</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:22:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lewism.org/?p=464#comment-61906</guid>
		<description>I wonder how progressive architecture schools approach photography these days. The images in the link are indeed splendid - dramatic perspectives and a deep retrospective yearning for the defunct industrial roots of much of Europe now falling into disrepair but re-invigorated as a canvas for the spray can lads (in this context, looking pretty good).

But like many, having taken the two year photography course in higher education, then onto university with our own dedicated photographer coaching us in the architecture school...my interest has completely dried up - replaced completely with an enduring admiration for real wold creativity - painting and architecture.

Maybe its the digital revolution, I mean these days if you are missing a holiday snap, you can grab &#039;that view that I missed&#039; from Flikr and even photoshop out the loud American standing beside the hand rail and replace it with missing scenery taken from an identical photo, also loaded onto Flikr or sim.

Photography seems have lost the risk element, which makes it less amazing. Imagine if watercolour painting had an eraser. Don&#039;t ask how, but imagine if you could lay on the colour wash, then change your mind and take it off again. I think that&#039;s lost from photography - there now 1000 photos in a shoot rather than 24 or 36. And there is no suspense as you whip open the envelope to view the developed shots to find that they are all duds, or the wonderful feeling of seeing the image develop in the liquid of the developing tray.

However, I think that the future beyond photography is interesting but I don&#039;t know what that means. In a world full of perfect images - what will we crave and where will we find the satisfaction for it.

I think &#039;live&#039; is where we might end up. We just want live, lots of it - hence the return of the live concert in force on the global circuit. But as I say, I&#039;m not exactly sure where this leaves us with the still image - as believable or unbelievable as it may be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I wonder how progressive architecture schools approach photography these days. The images in the link are indeed splendid &#8211; dramatic perspectives and a deep retrospective yearning for the defunct industrial roots of much of Europe now falling into disrepair but re-invigorated as a canvas for the spray can lads (in this context, looking pretty good).</p>
<p>But like many, having taken the two year photography course in higher education, then onto university with our own dedicated photographer coaching us in the architecture school&#8230;my interest has completely dried up &#8211; replaced completely with an enduring admiration for real wold creativity &#8211; painting and architecture.</p>
<p>Maybe its the digital revolution, I mean these days if you are missing a holiday snap, you can grab &#8216;that view that I missed&#8217; from Flikr and even photoshop out the loud American standing beside the hand rail and replace it with missing scenery taken from an identical photo, also loaded onto Flikr or sim.</p>
<p>Photography seems have lost the risk element, which makes it less amazing. Imagine if watercolour painting had an eraser. Don&#8217;t ask how, but imagine if you could lay on the colour wash, then change your mind and take it off again. I think that&#8217;s lost from photography &#8211; there now 1000 photos in a shoot rather than 24 or 36. And there is no suspense as you whip open the envelope to view the developed shots to find that they are all duds, or the wonderful feeling of seeing the image develop in the liquid of the developing tray.</p>
<p>However, I think that the future beyond photography is interesting but I don&#8217;t know what that means. In a world full of perfect images &#8211; what will we crave and where will we find the satisfaction for it.</p>
<p>I think &#8216;live&#8217; is where we might end up. We just want live, lots of it &#8211; hence the return of the live concert in force on the global circuit. But as I say, I&#8217;m not exactly sure where this leaves us with the still image &#8211; as believable or unbelievable as it may be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
