AIC, 1988 - AIC Associazione Italiana Autori della Fotografia ...

AIC
addensamenti di energia resti
una traccia, un segno: differenti
"grani" di materia o elettricità o
magnetismo che chiamiano
immagine rivelata e che sarebbe
meglio chiamare mappa della
presenza, sullo schermo della
camera oscura, di una forma
delle differenze energetiche.
Ma il bambino non si dà per
vinto, pronto a rischiare la vita
ci fa notare che anche gli
addensamenti e le forme degli
insiemi di addensamenti, le
mappe geometriche, i '-'grani" di
materia, elettricità, magnetismo
sono immagini, modelli, mappe
della "realtà" per cui
non
disegnarmi mappe Signore, la mia
testa è una mappa,
una mappa del mondo intero.
* Vitellione, Vitellio, Witelio,
monaco polacco vissuto nel XIII
secolo, è l'autore di un volume di
perspectiva communis (ottica o
scienza della visione) dal titolo:
0pticae Libri decern
volume notissimo fino a tutto il
rinascimento e che è
sostanzialmente una parafrasi del
volume:
De aspectibus
di Abu Al Mohammed ibn Al
Hasan ibn al Haytham
(965-1038 d.C.) meglio
conosciuto in Europa col nome
di Al Hazen.
Questo volume cominciò a
circolare in Europa fin dal XII
secolo nella versione latina e a
partire dal XIV secolo, nella
versione volgare sotto il titolo:
De li aspecti
versione notissima quest'ultima
nell'ambiente artistico (vedi p.es.
Lorenzo Ghiberti — Commentari
l'I) e che molto probabilmente
fu il testo guida per la
costruzione della teoria
prospettica in pittura, la
perspectiva artificialis o pingendi
(v. p. es. Antonio di Tuccio
Manetti — Vita di Filippo di Ser
Brunellesco).
To protect the monacus albiventes, the
marsicanus bear and the little boy who
ish why there is a moon in the sky.
Fig. 1
-Hus, black, white and all the other
colours will appear to be generated by
'he eye's perceiving something which is
moving towards it, that which we see
one colour or another, is neither
'hat which the eye perceives moving
towards it, nor the eye itself, rather
something that is generated in the
middle
if
one becomes sentient, it is necessary to
become sentient of something, as it is
possible to become sentient but not
sentient of nothing; similarly,it also
necessary that the particular thing of
which one becomes sentient, when it
becomes bitter or sweet or of another
flavour, becomes such for somebody, as
it is possible to become sweet, but not
sweet for nobody...
(Empedocles of Agrigento 500 B.C.)
What exactly are the images we
«create»?
"Il frullo del passero" di Luigi Verga
Of which we claim to be the
«authors»?
What do we utilize and how, when we
create images? And once they have
been created, where do they live, where
do they sleep?
Furthermore, are all images the same?
And how does one establish the
simililarity or diversity between them?
So often, it happens that, either
reading about or listening to highly
technical and/or artistic dissertations
concerning the image, turns into the
most horrifyingly non-communicative
experience, and the line taken is
irritatingly similar to the medieval
arguments about God's existence,
which took for granted that one knew
who or what God was, and therefore
that He/It existed; it is very rare that
the speaker, or writer, makes the
distinction between the various types of
image: whether they are optical,
tactile, psychogenic, phenomenal,
scientific, or real, virtual, etherea,
energetic, photographic, electronic,
magnetic, projected, geometric, retinal,
latent, revealed, or then again, whether
if they constitute a concept, an idea,
simalcrum effigy, figure, representation,
model, map etc. we live in a constant
whirlwind of images, and are about to
bwe buried alive by a veritable
snowstorm caused by a multitude of
indirect vision devices, such as the
magnifying glass, microscope, telescope,
graphics, photography, cinema,
television etc., (Fig. 2, 3,4, 5)
in our optical field (direct vision , on
the other hand, means that nothing is
interposed between the object of our
vision which transmits the visible
radiation, and the eye itself except the
air we breathe).
Some of the above devices, which
permit the memorization of images,
and the multiplication of those
memories, are frequently responsible
for transforming the snowstorm into a
blizzard. A blizzard in which the
images paradoxically become blinding,
so much so that one is no longer able
to tell the difference between them,
and sees only a whirling white mass.
And yet, it was quite common, both in
ancient times and during the Middle
Ages and Renaissance, that images
were «seen» as being of different types,
of a different nature.
«... the first marvellous thing that
manifests itself in painting is a wall or
other plane which seems to stand out
distinctly, beguiling the judgment by
its not being divided in any way by the
surface...»
(Leonardo da Vinci)
Perhaps, it would simplify things a
little, if we were to put ourselves in the
place of the little boy who asks why
there is a moon in the sky, and take,
for example, a simple postage stamp
and examine it with an ordinary
magnifyng glass, an indirect visual
device which has existed for at least e
2,500 years (see: "The Clouds of
Aristofanes ", Socrates-Strepsiades
dialogue 423 B.C.)
As we will see a «larger» postage
stamp when we look through the
magnifying glass, it will therefore seem
reasonable to ask: where is the large
postage stamp actually?
Which will naturally elicit the: where
the small postage stamp is, where do
you think?!
Q. but... it's impossible to see both of
them
together... how do 1 know they are
together?... and anyway,"how can
something large be in the same place
as something small?
A. The stamp is a thing, and that
which you see through the magnifying
glass is its image. They are two
different things...
Q. Do things have an image then?
A You could say that... in a certain
sense...
Q.How can you tell how much bigger
the image is than the stamp?
A. First, take a ruler and place it on
the stamp, then place it on...
Q. How can I place the ruler on the
image of the stamp?
A...??...
Q. How can 1 place a ruler on
something, when 1 don't know where it
is? Why don't you show me?
Just try measuring the image you see
through a magnifying glass, you'll find
it extremely difficult!.
If we didn't silence the chil inside us,
we would also find ourselves in an
extremely difficult situation every time
we made a film (creation of images) or
watched a show (cinema, T.V. etc.)
Every time we use the exposure meter
(radiometer) to measure the light, we
think that we are «in reality»
measuring the energy of the visible
radiation that strikes the photoelectric
cell, and we ako think that a
proportional amount of this energy will
strike a corresponding point on the
film; then we think about the
proportional amount of energy that
will strike the corresponding point of
the screen while the film is being
projected; and finally, we think about
that which we will see when we look
at that corresponding point on the
screa', what will actually appear
there.
We are sitting in front of a T.V. screen
«on» which we are watching various
images of a film set in New York. If we
place a ruler on the screen, we see
immediately that the «nearest»
skyscrapers are about 20 - 30 cms.
high, and those «in the background»
are, in fact, only 2 cm. high!
We are now in a cinema watching
more images of the same film «on» the
screen. If we place a decametre up
against the screen, we will see
immediately that the star, Marilyn
Monroe, is 5 or 6 metres tall.
Moreover,according to the decametre,
Marilyn becomes incredibly tiny when