light/right/night time


Photo Information
K-r
19/04/2017 - 10:22Grodgeman
CategoryBlack & White
BodyK-r
Shutter SpeedN/A
ApertureN/A
LensN/A
ISON/A
Focal LengthN/A
Views/Likes65/1
TagsN/A

go4IT

Link Posted 19/04/2017 - 13:34
Let me think about this one for awhile and get back to it later.

Grodgeman

Link Posted 19/04/2017 - 15:01
go4IT wrote:
Let me think about this one for awhile and get back to it later.

Hello.
Don't think too hard.
There is NO meaning.
I was just pushing cursors to see the effects wondering what to do about the window light.
Then, with the light and the dark and a clock, slapped down something with the words evoked and with a suggestion of meaning, but remained enigmatic—like a lot of surrealistic stuff.
The alternative title was: "The ambiguity of time" as there are two moments in a cycle when the clock face indicates identical time, one in the light of day light and the in the dark of night, and which time can be the "right", "good" , "desirable" moment the face of itself does not say, but relentlessly pursues its course.
A window shows whether it is light or dark, which times both have their messages…
And one could go on and on with interpretations and metaphors…
The world is what you want to make of it.
Donuts and holes, glasses half full or empty.
Archibald MacLeish, the American poet, said somewhere that a poet is entitled to whatever meaning can be read into his poem.
I suppose the same could be said of a photo: you get whatever you want to or can read in it.
If this photo caught your eye, it did something.
It certainly made me write the above: for better or for worse, and, in making it all up and writing it, i did learn something, and made me wonder what else I could say about it.
The "truth" of it much in secondary, the point is what it makes you do.
The journey towards something is richer that the fulfilment (even if the destination has a purpose).
As the French wit, writer, cinéaste said: The best part of love is when you are climbing the stairs.
Thanks, go4IT and good day/night-light to you.
Last Edited by Grodgeman on 19/04/2017 - 15:03

go4IT

Link Posted 19/04/2017 - 15:33
Thanks for taking the time to comment extensively on "light/right/night time". Of course, there is no meaning IN words, or IN pictures, or IN anything exterior to our mind. And further, all meaning is subjective and cannot be shared. That being said, I feel this is your very best posting (at least since I joined PU this January), and I fail to see how it can improved upon, except for its title. For what it is worth, if I had posted this, the title would have been: "Tick, Tick, TICK"
Last Edited by go4IT on 19/04/2017 - 15:34

Grodgeman

Link Posted 19/04/2017 - 16:07
Thanks again.
And for taking the time to comment.
"Tick, Tick, Tick" would—to my mind—lead to (almost) exclusive focalisation on the clock.
What is interesting are "situations", juxtaposition, the combination of elements, the eye-catchingly unexpected (and reactions they might provoke).
To push contrasts, change the sky, alter the colours, get way from what is expected.
Edward Hopper, Edward Hopper, René Magritte, Edward Hopper, Edward Hopper
A purely representational photo is good for a technical manual or textbook.
National Geographic illustrations generally go beyond the factual information: there is always some effect of colour or angle or situation that give them an "artistic" quality.
I make no pretension to that level.
In your first remark you wrote: "get back too it later".
Few things could be more gratifying.
Re-thanks.
Cheers.
Last Edited by Grodgeman on 19/04/2017 - 16:10

go4IT

Link Posted 19/04/2017 - 16:31
That was "Tick, Tick, TICK", a subtle difference from "Tick, Tick, Tick". Could also have named it "The Fugitive". It's 2 hours and change from midnight, dude----get your house in order: that's what I see and FEEL. Maybe tomorrow I'll see something else, because this photo invites more than cursory participation. A lovely, lovely work.

Grodgeman

Link Posted 19/04/2017 - 16:39
OK.
I give in.
I did not pick up the change of case.
"The Fugitive"? — Did he ever get away?
I'll REALLY have to think about that one...
Stumped!
Totally…
I'll call it "Darkening hour" or "A midday midnight approaches"…
The title's up for grabs.

go4IT

Link Posted 19/04/2017 - 17:15
As in Tempus Fugit: "Time is fleeting" (as opposed to "fleeing!")

As for your implication that the window light suggests that the time is "midday", dear Grodgeman, it may be 10:40 AM at lower latitudes (somewhat midday-ish), but late PM, say, in Denmark or northern Japan. LOL. Enigmatic.

Let's say it's AM. LOL In that case, the title would be: "Take your sweet time, baby, cause you have 14 hours and change before you croak." Then you put in parentheses: "But for those of you who live in places like Whitehorse, Yukon, you have only 2 hours and change."

By the way, loved the "climbing the stairs" quote. That one goes into my collection.

Shall we agree, as you say, that the world is the way people want to make it? Bottom line: let's do this again sometime when I have more time.

Grodgeman

Link Posted 19/04/2017 - 17:35
D'accord.
Entendu.
Bonne soirée.


Geographic coordinates of Nantes, France
Latitude: 47°13′02″ N
Longitude: 1°33′12″ W
Elevation above sea level: 19 m
Time shown = CET

Forgot to give original of quote attributed usually to Sacha Guitry but, also, to Georges Clemenceau.
"Le meilleur moment de l'amour, c'est quand on monte l'escalier."

Cheers.
Last Edited by Grodgeman on 19/04/2017 - 18:03

GIULIO57

Link Posted 19/04/2017 - 19:32
...sorry...What time is it?
PPG

Grodgeman

Link Posted 20/04/2017 - 08:45
GIULIO57 wrote:
...sorry...What time is it?

Depends on when you ask, and where you ask, and how you ask and whom you ask. Time is the ultimately relative notion.
By any timepiece, the time is right twice every twenty-four hours.
And, if you have one watch you can know the time, but if you have two you cannot be sure.
Last Edited by Grodgeman on 20/04/2017 - 08:47

GIULIO57

Link Posted 20/04/2017 - 18:22
Grodgeman wrote:
GIULIO57 wrote:
...sorry...What time is it?

Depends on when you ask, and where you ask, and how you ask and whom you ask. Time is the ultimately relative notion.
By any timepiece, the time is right twice every twenty-four hours.
And, if you have one watch you can know the time, but if you have two you cannot be sure.

Right words and I wanted to read just those...in special way this one"By any timepiece, the time is right twice every twenty-four hours" Even a broken watch marks right time twice a day
PPG

go4IT

Link Posted 20/04/2017 - 19:09
I wish to take exception to the statement that every watch is right twice a day. This is not the case with a watch that is either slow or fast consistently. (For eggheads--- a watch that is reliable but not valid). Think about it. This watch in fact is NEVER right.
Last Edited by go4IT on 20/04/2017 - 19:10

Grodgeman

Link Posted 20/04/2017 - 22:05
No use bothering about watches when you are right.
I forgot to specify that the twice-right watch must be one that is not working.
It is true that a working watch can run fast or slow, but its precision or reliability can be determined one way or another only by some third-party reference (référence tierce).
The user of the watch can then make the necessary adjustments and decide on the reliability of the watch and the value of the time indicated.
By default, not knowing whether the watch is reliable or not makes the user dependent on the indicated time which is for the user objectively the 'right' time.
To return to the non-working watch (with a twelve-hour face), there must be an 'objective' moment when the 'real' time corresponds to the time the hands indicate—which is what I meant.
The relative values can refer only to a watch that is functioning.
By any criterium, somewhere in the world it must be the time indicated on the dial—just gor off the plan and forgot to reset the watch for local time.
As I write, it is 14:00 sharp in Seattle and 23:00 in Nantes, and, having written that, I must say that I should have written "wrote" and "was".
I suppose one can never really, or should never really, write or say "The time is…", because by the time you have finished writing it or saying it…
Godd night.
once you know that a watch

go4IT

Link Posted 20/04/2017 - 23:25
Grodgeman wrote:
No use bothering about watches when you are right.
I forgot to specify that the twice-right watch must be one that is not working.
It is true that a working watch can run fast or slow, but its precision or reliability can be determined one way or another only by some third-party reference (référence tierce).
The user of the watch can then make the necessary adjustments and decide on the reliability of the watch and the value of the time indicated.
By default, not knowing whether the watch is reliable or not makes the user dependent on the indicated time which is for the user objectively the 'right' time.
To return to the non-working watch (with a twelve-hour face), there must be an 'objective' moment when the 'real' time corresponds to the time the hands indicate—which is what I meant.
The relative values can refer only to a watch that is functioning.
By any criterium, somewhere in the world it must be the time indicated on the dial—just gor off the plan and forgot to reset the watch for local time.
As I write, it is 14:00 sharp in Seattle and 23:00 in Nantes, and, having written that, I must say that I should have written "wrote" and "was".
I suppose one can never really, or should never really, write or say "The time is…", because by the time you have finished writing it or saying it…
Godd night.
once you know that a watch

We may be wandering just a wee bit from your photograph, which, as I say, is lovely.

davidtrout

Link Posted 21/04/2017 - 09:01
Enjoy the image....but perhaps more importantly just sit back and wallow in the debate.
If you think too hard you start to worry about the Big Bang theory.... what was there previously. Explosions can't occur in a complete vacuum of nothingness.
David
PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout
Last Edited by davidtrout on 21/04/2017 - 09:06

Grodgeman

Link Posted 21/04/2017 - 10:11
Nothingness, in this case, is the word/concept we use to qualify what we do not understand or conceive and never shall really, because we shall never have an outside view.
The "Big Bang" itself was, probably, just a passing singularity of and in an "infinity" and/or "eternity" of others "within" something greater, and unfathomable in which our locally perceptible notions of space and time have no meaning.
In the photo above, a moment in our conventional time is indicated, but which is fixed for all time. We dance around within this "moment" and try to read meaning into it.
The universe does not ask questions about itself, does not even exist outside our brief temporal perceptions and those, probably, of some other sentient (but rare) beings elsewhere.
It appears to be run by laws, but laws, which operate differently at different scales.
The universe is in all ways the incomprehensible opposite of what we observe and say about it. Human language can deal only with measurable concepts and states. As in: "Of all infinite things, love is the briefest…"
Et caetera.
But, as you suggest, it is time, here, to take time out about time.
The easy way out is to call it all God and give up and have fun while we can.
But it was interesting while it lasted.
Sorry about all this, but words generate words and there is—after all—no real obligation to read these.
Cheers.
Time for a coffee.

THE END.
Last Edited by Grodgeman on 21/04/2017 - 10:22

davidtrout

Link Posted 21/04/2017 - 10:37
Grodgeman wrote:
Time for a coffee.

THE END.

Or something stronger?
David
PPG: http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/davidtrout

Grodgeman

Link Posted 21/04/2017 - 12:01
Thanks for all your remarks.
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.