Chaff n’ wheat n’ pearls n’ swine n’ mixed metaphors n’ whatnot. AKA Editing

This isn’t really that attractive a topic to many people, but I really enjoy the process of editing. It could be because I have a gathering methodology of just wandering about and snaffling up whatever takes my fancy – I take a lot of really shite photos, every so often I stumble over a good one. Editing is also a bit like that, it’s an exploration.


Ominous signpost with a crow – it’s a metaphor… Actually if you look carefully it’s a sign for the loo – must photoshop that some time.

So after a year or three I have some reason to go through a set of my files – So I’ll let you in on a little secret, I take a lot of different photos… No really, I shoot everything from Ultra large format through to micro formats, Digital, film, plastic cameras, infrared, scanners, I’d love to get my hands on a thermal camera. But in this case I’ll talk about mobile phone pics. I take a lot of these, it’s probably the camera type I use most often. I have a particular penchant for an app called Vignette – it’s a bit like having a holga in your pocket (I’m sure there’s a joke in that somewhere).


It’s not always the ideal tool, but I pretty much always have my phone handy – the helicopter was shaking water off the cherries so as they could be picked and to stop the skins from splitting. Serious business. Cellphone shots of things in the distance often don’t work.


Big things in the distance on the other hand. Havelock in the Marlborough Sounds in New Zealand – it’s acceptably pretty I guess.


Random Raptors.


And things which probably only amuse me – I love this sign Smile

Anyhow – Editing…


I’m aware that these are film…


and I was talking about cellphones…


and there’s no segue from cellphones to film, but this is where my methodology comes from. I like to see prints.


And clunk, back to cellphones – those ‘contact sheets’ on the wall go round three walls by the way & and you can see a second select on the floor where I can walk around on them and kick them about into different patterns – I need to move things and see patterns.

I also use video for the same thing – I make a video from stills and play it at five frames a second – which is just enough for me to gain an impression, but not long enough to ‘look’. It’s interesting how peoples brains work – these methods will be great for a few people, but for many more people they will not work at all, each person is different – you have to try things till something resonates.

Through these methods of selecting, and kicking things around into different patterns I make selections and suchlike – it’s a process of exploration as much as elimination – the irony is that the stand alone images which I really like seldom make it through this stage, they might be nice images, but the don’t play nice with others.

One day I’ll find a use for this image… My favorite chippie in the west end of Brisbane. (Georges).


Pentax Kp review (sorta) Part one – First impressions after a week

Fyi, most of these files have been edited, I almost always shoot DNG Raw format, and I rarely put unedited files out into the world – If I haven’t said something is ‘out of camera’ then it’s probably noise reduced, relit, and so forth, this camera doesn’t suffer much from noise. I haven’t spent much time editing these, they don’t need much. Everything is reduced to 1024 pix on the long side but the exif is probably intact.

I mean, who really cares what unedited shots look like – I try to do 99% of the work in camera, but most pix need a tweak – Incidentally the noise is very easy to control in lightzone, it’s very colour neutral for the most part at sub-bonkers ISO levels.

So I’ve brought a Pentax Kp, After waiting for five weeks or so for it to turn up I finally have it in my hand…

So What do I think? Well it’s nice and works well… Review over yup 🙂

I decided to write this because I was unable to find the information I wanted to know – like yes, CAF is nice, but how is the SAF (it’s good, it doesn’t hunt), cos that’s what I generally use. Where are the buttons (coming from the k50 it’s ergonomically sensible), how is the contrast control with non-standard lenses (good), is the in camera HDR still fugly (affirmative).

What I wanted to know was bits and pieces like that. Ergonomics, particularly coming from a K50, I’m not sure I see any point in upgrading from a K3ii or a k70 unless you either have critical needs or a corporate account.

The fancy grips everybody has been discussing are a bit naff to me – as I said I have the small grip, and it isn’t particularly comfortable to use, It tapers in at the top, so it doesn’t rest on your middle finger and fill your palm like most cameras – it feels awkward, I wind up using the tips of my fingers and thumb which gets uncomfortable. My work around for this is to hold the camera under the lens with other hand (it’s a comfortable and secure way to carry this camera) – not very high-tech, but it works fine.

Gratuitous flower shot, just cos. Yes it was raining a wee bit.

The reason I don’t much care about the grips is because I have access to a 3d printer along with a few other gadgets which will allow me to make the grip I want. No doubt regular style camera grips will also appear on ebay soon. With a regular grip I think the ergonomics will be good. In time this will be a non-issue. It’s not a huge issue now.

And ergonomics – I do wish that the power button wasn’t so sharp as I tend to carry my camera on the strap over my right shoulder with the prism towards my body and the lens tucked into the back of my hip – In this position the power button digs into my hip – That’s probably the single thing that bothers me most about this camera. It’s not a big thing – also has a habit of turning the camera on or off at inopportune times.

I’ve seen people comment on it as being like a mirrorless camera, it’s not! It might feel a bit similar in the hand due to the silly tapering grip style, but frankly in size it’s between a K50, and a K10 (though both have more comfortable grips). This is a good thing as this gives it space to fit all of the buttons.

It’s still a small camera, but it’s not as tiny as you might be led to expect.

As a total aside, I do like the gray/silver embroidered strap – if it was bright red or green I would have replaced it with a more neutral colour.

The button layout is logical, ergonomic, and largely customisable, I have depth of field assigned to the +/-ev button next to the shutter and then +/-ev to the left of the viewfinder – this is due to my not being able to assign Raw/Jpg to the button left of the viewfinder – being able to use the raw/jpg button on the left of the body for depth of field would be ideal – I find that omission a little bit inexplicable.

I suppose this is as good a point to segue into why I decided to get one – yeah, my justification 🙂 There is actually a point.

What I want in a camera is largely good resolution, good low light performance (which is more than just high ISO), manual colour and contrast controls, reasonably portable as I tend to carry a camera every day (otherwise I’d have a canon 5diii). and… well, I like old lenses too, I’m willing to lose some sharpness in exchange for how a lens renders. Oh, I also want a camera which is me-proof (such a thing doesn’t exist yet).

I have had a Pentax K10d for a bunch of years – I’ve dragged it all over New Zealand and Australia, it’s been dropped in the desert, in crocodile infested swamps (it literally went underwater – not a nice feeling going after it), it’s fallen off cars. In short my lifestyle whilst I hitchhiked around NZ and Aussie was basically a camera torture test – it still works (a couple of lenses didn’t make it), I now use it in manual mode as the auto exposure has gone a bit screwy , apart from occasional over exposures in aperture priority mode it still functions just fine – great camera, and the locking latches are pretty neat – this is my studio camera and the one I’d reach for if I were wandering out into a cyclone or a sandstorm. That said, it’s getting tired, so it tends to stay close to home now.

The K50 works just fine, it handles awkward lighting, and makes good pictures, I’m keeping it as a very capable 2nd body to the Kp – they take the same battery incidentally.

I came across a K50 with a lens for $499 in 2015 here in New Zealand, it was on clearance for some reason. For perspective – minus tax and exchange rates that’s like $300usd – I haven’t seen that price matched, So I’ve been very happy with what I got especially for the price – but after the K10d the build quality was a let down. Still a very good and fairly tough camera, nice and light, fantastic ergonomics, and it takes great pictures, just not my first choice for rough weather.

I was hoping the Kp would be the best of both worlds, and essentially it is – still probably not as tough as the k10, but it’s a very robust camera. Then you consider that it has absolutely fantastic image quality and surprisingly good low light performance – it’s pretty nice.

Heavy mist, low light, and screwy lighting. The camera can see better than I can. No focus hunting incidentally, In very low light the focus gets really slow, but it never seems to rack back and forth. Whizz whizz whizz etc tends to irritate me. Slow is fine.

I can’t be bothered quantifying the image quantity, it’s extremely good. I use a wide range of cameras at work, I think the 5diii is maybe slightly better image quality, but that’s twice the price, and much bigger – not the same thing. It’s kind of similar to a D7200, but I’ll happily take image stabilisation over autofocus speed. I don’t use much in the way of autofocus modes – I generally either use it with center spot with a half press to lock focus (I lock the spot EV with the rear button first) then recompose and shoot – Or else I use manual focus and EV, I’ve shot plenty of film using these methods, it’s not so hard. The viewfinder is nice, bright, and fairly easy to focus with by the way (other than playing I haven’t used the LVF).

Sure you could count the bricks in this shot at 100%, I was more surprised that I can count most of the nails in the tin roof to the left. This is also with a sigma 18-125 -not a wildly sharp lens – I’m guessing the exposure was something like 35mm – f7.1  – 1/60th @100ISo or so.

The high ISO is also surprisingly good – I’ve used it with the ISO set to auto 100-6400 with my only qualm being that the camera seems take ‘shadow correction’ a little too seriously – it the sky or lights aren’t in the shot then is can easily look like a day time shot. ISO 64,000 is usable if you can live with grain (quite heavy though reasonably neutral colour) and a very faint green/magenta mottling in the shadows. Shots taken at 10k look good, though it’s losing a bit of detail by then.

If your use of cameras is mission critical rather than aesthetic, the extreme low light performance is remarkably good. If you really expect more then you need to head straight for the Pentax K1, the Nikon D810 or the Canon 5div (I haven’t used current medium format digitals or other brands of full frame cameras but I’m sure the current models have great low light – that said, there frankly isn’t much in it over the Kp, and they’re all full frame and far more expensive (the K70 is very close and far cheaper if you are happy to let go of a couple of features that most people don’t really need).

The 819,200 ISO setting is largely decorative. Incidentally it shows up in Lightzone (raw converter/editor) as being 65,535 or something like that.

The ridiculously high ISO is actually handy for checking focus and composition when it’s proper dark – that said, the settings over 100-200k or so are largely pointless for this, especially in the dark (no fine detail).

64,000 ISO is surprisingly not crap, sure it’s grainy at 100%, and I wouldn’t bother to make a large print from the file, but it is good enough for some uses – This was an out of camera JPG file, no editing, just resized – this was evenly if dimly lit – deep shadows and high contrast ranges will make the high ISO’s look far worse… All digital cameras are the same in that.

I haven’t managed to get sensor shift resolution to work with any consistency off tripod, so I haven’t really bothered. On tripod I’m sure it’s brilliant, the camera also has a proper two press mirror lockup, bulb and time modes, depth of field preview and a couple of other tricks up it’s product/landscape photography sleeve. I will be playing with these in the near future (I’m moving house right now).

Fairly dark, no real reason for including this shot, but the KP can handle mixed lighting quite happily – there’s four different light sources with neon lights on the building over my shoulder. Poor focus is my fault.

The rear screen does some folding stuff, which I’m kind of ambivalent about – I’d prefer it if I could flip it right over with the screen into the camera, but it seems fairly robust, so to me its neither here nor there. As with the K50 and the K10 you can turn off the screen in order to avoid blinding yourself at night, If you use the user settings to save your settings when you have all that stuff switched off then it’ll stay that way in the corresponding U mode. The Kp has 5 user modes, I do like that! You do also need to go into the menu and go through the memory modes – it’s like the 3-4th menu, in there there is a selection for save screen status – I basically never have my rear lcd on.

The Pentax kp has a night vision mode – by this they mean preserving night vision – not seeing in the dark (though the camera can). This just turns the rear lcd completely red, which is sorta neat, and the images shown in review mode come up red also (obviously they’re not recorded that way), along with the menus, etc. This is geeky fun, but I personally just turn the screen and review off all together when I’m working in the dark. The information in the viewfinder is still green incidentally, so still screws your night vision a bit – Center focus point is red, I assume the others are too.

I haven’t tested the astrotracer, seems cool, but I don’t have a gps unit. I have also played with the android app only long enough to establish that it works and can be used in lieu of a cable release – I’m not terribly worried about this feature – May well be handy for wet weather cable release or for video, I haven’t tested this. I’m just going to take a soldering iron to some audio adapters and adapt my existing release cables. For wet weather I can use the self timer as I’m used to.

My copy of the Kp front focuses a little, there’s an option in the menu to fix it. In manual focus it’s visually correct for the screen (not the focus confirmation obviously), so this will be an easy fix.

This was dark enough that I could see the sign on the left, but I sure couldn’t read it. My focus point was on the light down the street – pretty obvious front focus at 2.4 Not an interesting shot, I was testing the low ISO by taking snapshots in the dark.
35mm @2.4 6400 ISO @ 1/13th of a second by the way.

I have managed to lock it up to the point that I had to remove the battery and lose my last few shots – this came as a result of my taking half a dozen quick shots whilst changing settings such as wb and style – unrepeatable error so far. (immediately above was the next shot after I unlocked it)

On the battery front, I’m not too bothered to have an admittedly sub-par battery, this is for two reasons, firstly it uses the same battery as the k50, so I have a bunch of spares, and secondly, I guess because the k50, and my action cams, and my panasonic M-4/3 cameras have all lowered my expectations. Excepting severe weather 400 shots isn’t that much of a handicap (changing batteries in a cyclone isn’t amusing), I’m also unconcerned by the frames per second and buffer depth, I don’t shoot that fast that I’d be concerned by it. For that matter, the lack of a top lcd also doesn’t bother me too much, I can get most of the info I need from the viewfinder, the rest I tend to set ahead of time.

In camera HDR is kinda fugly 99.97% of the time – this shot is no exception.

The mode dials on the right hand side are an interesting design decision – they basically make available a bunch of the image colour and tone settings, it’s an interesting idea, but I do wish the control dial to the right was half the height, it’s pretty easy to click it over accidentally – and if the mode dial is set to anything other than ‘off’ it’ll give you a surprise when you take your next photo – I had a bleach-bypass related incident along these lines.

I find the lens compatibility interesting. Yes, it works with damn near anything in manual mode, it’s a large part of the appeal of the system to me. However, ignoring that as a given, I have several lenses which shone on the K10 which weren’t at all good on the k50, for example my sigma 18-125, this lens funnily enough is perfectly happy on the Kp, it’s not a sharp lens, but maybe it’s the right sort of fuzzy, and the way it renders form is really quite pleasing – my 100mm f4 pentax M macro and adaptall ct300 are also very nice. By the way, a 300mm 5.6 isn’t exactly a diminutive lens, neither is the 18-125 and that seems to be staying on the Kp for now. Use your left hand to support the lens and they balance fine. Most of these shots were taken with either the sigma or a pentax 35mm 2.4

The distortion from the sigma 18-125 can be clearly seen in the shapes of the car wheels at the bottom – doesn’t really faze me. Super flat lighting incidentally.
architecturally intriguing.
Just cos – incidentally, this is pretty close to how I set my camera to expose, fairly flat for photoshopping – there is a ‘flat’ mode for the colour mode, I tend to use natural with highlight corrections and let the shadows go.

More to come – In part two I guess…


I only got the small grip with the camera (Asian and Pacific market segregation), This despite it being advertised as including all three grips, The importer has turned around and decided they don’t have to supply them, which is a bit disappointing and is very definitely an ongoing conversation (global market segregation’s suck by the way Pentax/Ricoh).
The best thing that Pentax could do to break into the New Zealand market by the way would be to change suppliers to a company which actually likes the brand – I am extremely fond of the brand having had three of them now (actually I still have all three),  but I do not enjoy dealing with the New Zealand distributor as they seem to despise the brand.
Nuff said.



I’ve been playing a fair bit recently with different ideas and antique processes. In large part because I’ve no access to running water in my current studio space, thus my re-visiting physautotype. It’s a nice process for me in that it doesn’t require water at all, and it’s really not terribly sensitive to light (I also have no capacity to black out my space during the day, closing the curtains and working quickly is sufficient ).


This was a bad pour, the imafe is from a lith negative I had lying about. It was very thin, it seems that physautotype likes thin negs.


This is from my digital infrared series, I finally found an output from these files that I like.


This was a test exposure, it gives you a decent idea of what the plate looks like without any special holder. There’s a lot of detail there when it’s displayed correctly.

So the next step is re-jigging my negatives to be a bit thinner, which should preserve the shadow detail.

I’ve also been playing with an idea about dageurrotypes.IMG_20160322_155900

This is as far as I’ve gotten, not so special really. But in this case I’m trying to use cheap silver plated flatware and I’m using iodophor steriliser with a wet treatment to create the sensitive plate, so even this level of success is pretty surprising.

It’s not something I expect to work out very quickly, but it is fairly cheap to do.


Physautotype… again.

So I’ve started working with physautotype again. right now I’m gettting some decent results, not quite perfect, but it’s starting to happen.


These are made with one gram of violin rosin which is crushed to powder, then heated till liquid, cooled, crushed to powder again and added to 100ml of ethanol alcohol. (I’m using purple meths, seems to work fine).

This solution is put to the glass plate with a syringe (the glass plate held level on the fingertips of the opposite hand), the solution is swished around till it covers the whole glass plate, then swished around some more before it’s poured off the corner.

After the plate is poured off and stops dripping I turn the plate by 90 degrees so the next corner is down (the plate being held vertically at this point) and I use a paper towel to mop the bottom two edges of the plate till no more solution beads at the edge (note; the edge, not the surface of the plate).

Soon after this the plate will pass from transparent to a light frosted look, when this light frost covers the whole plate (it can be sped a little by fanning or lightly blowing on the plate) the plate is put down and over the next few minutes a secondary frost will occur. If the coating is uneven or the glass wasnt clean it will be obvious.

I’m using overhead transparencies for the negative (it’s direct positive, so the negative is actually a positive), which seems to work, though I still have a little work to do there, I give it three hours under a nail polish setter and then develop using mineral turpentine fumes.

The mineral turps fumes incidentally don’t need to be concentrated, I put a small splash on some black card in a pyrex dish and that’s enough to last a few days, if you can smell it then it’s probably strong enough.

Then leave it somewhere that it can air and get some sun, and it’s fixed. hold in front of a black surface and the image will show up nicely.

More later…


Well, I investigated the idea that I thought would allow me to print them faster – doesn’t work sadly 😛

The idea was sensitizing the solution with methylene blue dye – Only I think I may have used a bit much as it pooled quite drastically, and frankly it cut the sensitivity away to nearly nothing, so I may be on to something with the idea of spectral sensitizing, just I have it backwards or something. *shrug*

That’s my pouring bench, my uber high tech coating method is to put about 1/6th tsp of solution in a spoon and then dump it in the middle of a clean plate… Like so (after 30 sec or so of spreading out).

I was double coating those in the hope it would make a difference – it didn’t. With a clean glass plate the solution will spread itself out by capillary action or something – over a minute or two it basically covers the plate on it’s own – this makes for a slightly thicker coat at the center, but unless you’re dopey enough to add dye to it it shouldn’t matter.

Some coated plates;

So in essence, the blue dye offers no advantage, coats really badly, slows down the print time (1/2 a day out to 2 1/2 days), and to boot, it makes a bloody awful mess when (not if) it gets spilled.

I guess it eliminates a variable – Yay me!

This is the closest that i got to a print;

It’s from a negative, so is negative, and it’s on black perspex – a substrate which, excitingly enough, I have discovered does not work at all well with this process (it coats very unevenly) – though it is good for backing coated glass plates – In the following I’ve bumped the levels and suchlike a bit.

I can make stuff out cos I know what the neg was – a view from my atillier window amusingly enough – there’s a square white sign in the foreground, some stairs about 1/3rd of the way up towards the right – and at the same level on the left a rounded window on the building facing me – very bloody hard to photograph.

So for now, I’ll go back to 1 & 2% solutions of rosin in ethyl alcohol on chemically cleaned glass plates, cos I’m reasonably sure that works.


Some things I’ve tried – first up an orotone – which is a fancy term for painting the back of a positive gold (you’re supposed to use a ‘particular’ paint, but whatev’s, I just used oil paint)

A black print (yup, I made that name up) – sorta like an ambrotype, but not like an ambrotype at all (silver gelatine liquid emulsion based) – I’m handing in one of these this week – it’s washing as I type.

And Physautotypes – I’ve had three crack at it so far, the first was a total failure;

Yup, a blank piece of glass (reflecting my camera strap and my black top).

The second I got a line;

Which at least proved that it’s light sensitive.

The third I got a rhinoceroses bottom;

I messed up the development a bit, but it’s proof of concept – violin rosin and meths with mineral turps as a developer – a la Niepce. I’ve figured out a couple of things to improve the print – but learning to coat the stuff onto glass is top of the list – not easy compared to gelatin, or even collodion.

I have a masters crit Thursday, so after that I’m looking forward to doing some more of them, fun!

Photography and the icon (masters proposal Re.~1).

Photography and the icon.

April 2011.


A photograph is a strange bird in that it documents a situation – yet this situation which is documented or re-presented ceases to exist, or perhaps simply diverges in existence from the time the photograph is created. As the photograph is made, an archive is created, yet as the original event or situation which is documented ceases to exist in the manner re/presented, the relationship becomes gradually less clear and the photographic document develops an aura of singularity. Thus the photograph becomes both re-presentation and original simultaneously.

A non-photographic document of an situation has a flavour of attribution which denotes and focuses it’s role as the child of the original it documents, and yet in the photographic re-production the aura of singularity problematises this relationship between referent and descendent – they might share a history, but they do not share a present, nor a future. This absence of a fixed referent is something which makes the photograph different from other re-productive strategies in that the photograph can re-order a formerly linear archive in a manner which questions the role of re-presentation.

In traditional forms of art the closest simile to this paradoxical relationship which I can find, is that of the christian icon. A painting which is intended as a reflective depiction of the ineffable seems somehow semantically close to a photograph being an image with a functionally obscured referent. It is also somewhat axiomatic in as much as people speaking of photography often refer to images as ‘icons’, or as ‘iconic’, yet these words are seldom used in more traditional plastic arts (with the noted exception of christian iconography).

I am interested, in my art practice, in investigating the concept of the photograph as a means of creating icons of things which would, or could not otherwise achieve this status.

My research question is essentially as follows;

Is there something inherent in the medium of photography which is particularly given to the making of icons from things which would not otherwise achieve this status, and does this work differently to other mediums on this level”

Proposed methodology.

As far as method and methodology goes, I have several modes of investigation which I will utilise in this study, the first of which are research strategies;

The first research strategy will be to research examples where a photo has achieved a status which could be considered iconic, Some examples of this could be Alberto Gutiérrez’s ‘Guerrillero Heroico’, better known these days simply as “Che”, Edward Westons photographs of peppers, or any of a range of other great works from photographic artists.

A second investigation will be into Photographs where the referent is consiously obscured, yet the resultant photographs don’t reach iconic status, examples being Cindy Sherman’s “Untitled film stills”, and Thomas Demand’s work with photographed constructions.

Parallel to this will be a research into traditional icons in the religious sense along with any particular secular works which also seem appropriate in order to compare them to the aforementioned photographic works, and to study the parallels and differences between them – this research will be done in a fairly organic .

In concert with these historical and academic researches I will also work with physical media in a manner to investigate and make sense of what I discover, this will be in line with my usual kinaesthetic methodology which I use to investigate concepts in my practice, this is very much an experimentation and play based strategy which I use to translate academic concepts into physical strategies.

So in essence, my research will lead, but will be translated into physical work so that this can be returned to the theoretical in such a manner that each may feed or edit the other reflexively – thus making the aspects of my practice work in concert and hopefully in a self sustaining manner.

Proposed output.

At this point I cannot be sure as I intend to be working in a range of technologies during the process of producing the works, thus intending one output over another at this point would unnecessarily limit my reflexivity whilst working through the proposed processes.


For the first three months approximately of the school year I will gather information fairly rapidly and to do a fair amount of experimentation

in order to build up a largish body of work and an archive which I could analyse.

At that point I would intend to spend time analysing what I have, and working out the boundaries of my proposed research for the remaining time. This would be a point of consolidation and reflexive analysis which I would use to define my path of study, and to possibly redefine my research question.

I cannot be a great deal more expansive than that with regards to a proposed timeline as the research that I am proposing to undertake would be variably referential rather than based on a rigid proposal and thus timeline.

I do also have several outside exhibitions which I can use to test work in the public arena over this time as well, this is an integral part of my working practice.

Contribution to the field.

I intend to elucidate on the relationship between the photograph and the icon.

Ethical standards.

At this point I do not see any major ethical or legal hurdles which will cause undue problems, there are some potential (mainly moral) issues around using images of people, but I am not intending to do this, so essentially I’ll negotiate any decisions as they arise.

Preliminary References.

I’m referencing people rather than books as most of these people have written multiple essays in their respective fields, this is a start point.

J. Derrida I am Interested in his concepts around the referent, his thoughts on photography, but also iterability as well as his thoughts around resistance and hauntology – Particularly relevant is the text “Copy, Archive, Signature”.

R. Barthes I am particularly in his text “Camera Lucida” and his writing on existential phenomenology with regards to photography.

H. G. Gadamer I am interested especially in this thoughts around hermenuetics and the assignation of meaning to objects. His writings around the concept of ‘historically effected consciousness’ in particular are of interest to me, as well as ‘Wirkungsgeschichte‘ or ‘history of effects’.

M. Heidegger I am interested in Heidegger’s writings about the relationship between metaphysics and aesthetics, as well as concealment and the referent. His text “The Origin of the Artwork” is of especial interest to me.

J. Kristeva I am interested in what she has written especially about intertextuality, as well as semiotic systems and assignation of value to signs.

M. Foucault I’m interested in his discussions around ‘truth’ and ‘meaning’, rather than the historical digging that Gadamer does, he seems more interested in the logic that lies behind ‘claims’ to truth then in the actual truthfulness of the claim itself, this structure of the claim is interesting to me. His writings on societal norms and paradigms is also peripherally interesting.

W. Benjamin Although I don’t agree with some of what Benjamin says with regards to the separation of art and literature – his analysis of technological

reproduction and his thoughts around translation and the philosophy of history overlap in ways that are interesting and helpful to me.

U. Eco Eco has written quite a lot about the problems inherent in translation between systems of signs, his focus is essentially intralinguistic for the most part, but it is useful when it comes to the framing of questions around intersemiotic translation.

As for works of art: They would be works such as Alberto Gutiérrez’s ‘Guerrillero Heroico’ , much of the most famous work of the photo succession and the f64 group. There is a very broad scope for seeking out materials which are appropriate to the task at hand, this as well as traditional eastern orthodox icons as well.



I think this needs a bit more clarification, but this is how it’s being handed in for a first draft – I’ll rework it further, especially with regards to the idea that an icon can be personal, and does not have to be cultural or ‘group based’ – an example of a personal icon could be mortuary photography in the 19th century – which could well be only for one or a couple of people – also that an icon can be secular and still invoke a personal response. This is fruitful ground, and many people have written their tracks across this territory as they’ve attempted to chart it’s geography, but there’s an interesting lack of agreement even in basic terms… Fun no?