hckrnws

AK: You don’t think that’s true in the Arts? SP: Not in the same way. In the arts, a lot of the judging is outside of your tribe: curators, galleries, even museums. Philosophers are judged more from within. Also, much of philosophy is not for public consumption, or at least, it sort of is but sort of isn’t. You’re ultimately making things for your own family and they’re the ones judging you. The Arts function in a different way.

I have a degree in analytic philosophy, and this is definitely true. It's something I both miss and think is a serious issue with the field of philosophy, at least in the Anglosphere. It's very, very tempting to stay in the isolated, intellectual world of academic philosophy, where rigor matters and the petty sociopolitical problems of the world outside can be safely ignored. The vast majority of analytic philosophy doesn't really comment on contemporary ethical issues in the first place, which is ultimately where that buffer comes from, instead focusing largely on language, logic, and similar areas.

But it also leaves you feeling like you aren't really engaging with the world and with everything that the field of philosophy has to offer, especially when contemporary times are IMO full of real-world problems in desperate need of philosophers.

Thanks for the perspective. The courage to "face society" and write for the public is one of the reasons I've always loved (trying) to read Daniel Dennets work. He seemed to be writing for scientists and less to other philosophers. Not sure if you agree

I'm not super familiar with Dennett's work but I do know that he is better known outside of academic philosophy than within, probably for the reason you mentioned.

Fascinating, thanks for sharing! I’ve gotta buy this book one day. The interview got a little goofy towards the end — I think we can all sorta guess what professional photographers think of digital cameras and Instagram filters, and it kinda felt off topic - but overall very heart warming stuff. I do like thinking of philosophers as a family… wonder how true that is today, in the midst of intensely empirical + results-driven academic culture.

Reminds me of the Adler quote;

  What binds the authors together in an intellectual community is the great conversation in which they are engaged. In the works that come later in the sequence of years, we find authors listening to what their predecessors have had to say about this idea or that, this topic or that. They not only harken to the thought of their predecessors, they also respond to it by commenting on it in a variety of ways.

> I think we can all sorta guess what professional photographers think of digital cameras and Instagram filters, and it kinda felt off topic

I guess the camera is »just« a tool to the photographer. If their job requires certain things that can be done more efficiently with digital photography (e.g. sports – there was an article here recently about how photography was done at the olympics), then I'm fairly certain they tend to choose the better option.

However, for more artistic things like his portraits, I guess it makes little difference. Probably similar to a carpenter who just likes working with hand tools instead of power tools. Personally I like my SLR camera and dread going to mirrorless eventually (or I have to upgrade as long as DSLRs still exist) – at the current point I still feel weird about looking at a screen and not directly through the lens. I also like having all the settings and knobs to turn to control the exposure.

And all that is more a preference thing because it's a hobby for me that's fun and I am not bound to any particular results or cadence thereof.

There's a series on YouTube, Pro photographer, cheap camera. I was impressed at how usable photos can still come out of essentially trash cameras. But perhaps that's what a professional photographer's skill is: Taking a tool, considering what it can do (and what it cannot) and planning the shot accordingly

Partly that, and partly the other thing. The tool can inform the work; I have a cheap junk Sears-brand lens from 1975 that does magical things with light and color, and I have shots I could not have imagined making before I discovered what that lens could do. (I'm studying lens repair just lately so I can fix its stuck aperture! This tool is worth a whole skill to me, to keep working properly.)

It isn't a professional photographer's skill, though, but a photographer's one. Anyone who tells you he's a photographer and can't talk intelligently about these tradeoffs, about the selection of constraints to fit the intent of the work and vice versa, he's lying to impress you and probably don't let him hand you a drink.

You might be interested in what Nick Knight, a well-known photographer, thinks about cameras and other, newer devices. The TLDR is that he feels that "photographer" is increasingly an outdated term, and he ought to be called something like "image maker" instead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPummP8Vfyk

> ought to be called something like "image maker" instead.

Surely that is what photographers always have been? A photographer in the sense of the article is an artist. The image is created by the photographer using the tools of his trade, the camera, the film, the dark room. Now a photographer uses scanners, digital cameras, and software but I don't see that the essence of artistic photography has changed.

What would Knight call a portrait painter?

He means a specific thing by "image maker," which he talks about in the video.

Strange. Why is every single one of these photos out of focus?

The only portrait that appeared OOF to me was that of Susan Hurley. The rest look fine. Was there another one in particular you thought was OOF?

The artist does appear to use a large aperture (or some other technique) to control depth of field. So there are portraits where the background is blurred, or in some, even parts of the subject (hands vs face). But, overall, they're mostly all in focus.

Being a little out of focus and rambling around is a philosophers thing.

Using a lens with a shallow depth of field to create a bokeh effect.

They're not?

I see what the poster means. Parts of each face/head are out of focus. I dunno shit about photography so don’t know the term for what’s going on, but it looks like the camera was set so only about an inch-deep section of the shot would be in focus.

The resulting image looks more intimate. If the photograph was 10 feet away and zoomed in, the face might have the same scale but the entire face would be in focus. The actual image was shot much closer with a shallow depth of field, which even without thinking about it is perceived as the viewer being very close to the subject.

It is amazing how little of our field of view is in focus. Hold up your hand at arms length and look at your thumbnail so it is in focus. Notice that the part of the thumb immediately below the thumbnail is out of focus unless you move your eyes to look at it.

Yep, that's a technique in photography - common for portraits.

This photographer is employing an unusually shallow depth of field in some of these photos. You gotta have a gimmick.

They're all taken by the same photographer and thus exhibit a consistent style

Now do it for hackers :-)