civilized ku # 302 ~ wow, I can see a pimple on the butt of the nat on an elephant's ass (from a mile away)
Wednesday, December 23, 2009 at 09:00AM 
Xmas tree ornaments • click to embiggenRegarding yesterday's entry, re: hyperreality / too sharp, Paul Maxim commented:
... there is certainly more visible detail (HDTV) that can only be described as 'real". It cannot be described as "hyperreal". When I see a blemish on Brian Williams' face while watching the news, that is not an "unreal or vague semblance" of reality. The blemish is there. I can't see it on my old TV, perhaps, but it's still there. Or when I see individual beads of sweat on football or basketball players, that too is real.
So why is that a bad thing? Does it somehow distract from the intellectual or emotional experience?
Sure enough, Brian Williams' blemish, and football / basketball sweat is real. How it is presented / represented is not.
Unless, of course, as mentioned yesterday, you either have the eyes of a hawk or are, in fact, a hawk with 20/2 vision. I am not a hawk and, even though I have incredibly cool looking glasses, I do not have the eyes of a hawk so, to my eye and sensibilities, the presentation / representation of things too sharp / too detailed have both the look and feel of a hyperreality / the hyperreal.
But that said, and more to my point, what the f**k does seeing Brian Williams' blemish have to do with the price of tea in China, or, more specifically, the news? Seeing an athlete's body sweat in great detail and sharpness may be of great value / interest to those of a mysophilia / sthenolagnia or even a olfactophilia persuasion, but, once again, what the f**k does that have to do with the price of tea in China, or, more specifically, the game in progress?
But, once again, that said, Paul is asking the wrong question - why is that a bad thing?
IMO, the real question to ask, re: the preceding, why is that a good thing?
Where's the real value? Would Gone With The Wind be a "better" story in HD? Would seeing fine detail in Rhett Butler's / Scarlett O'Hara's clothing (or the blemishes on their faces) tell us more about their character? Would brighter more vividly colored blood in the hospital scenes tell us more about the ravages of war and human pain and suffering? Would I be a better and more informed person for having watched Gone With The Wind in HD than I would be if I had watched it in SD?
I am simply not convinced that there is any significant value added with the HD experience - be it television or still picture making. Except, of course, for all the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ flowing out of the hands of the suckers and into the pockets of the purveyors of such "life-enhancing" shit.
Reader Comments (7)
see yesterday's comment before going to the store.
What if the advancement of this HD technology helps a neurosurgeon save a life? or if a Crime unit finds a kidnapped child because he was seen in detail, in the background of a security cam's HD video in a mall? What if this technology is using less plastic and internal components than in the previous giant box-shaped TV's? What if that motivates designers to create even thinner, smaller, less energy consuming HDTV in the future (think bladrerunner)? What if a movie in an IMAX experience inspires my creative side 20x more than a standard movie projection theater and I go out and create something beautiful from that inspiration? And from my own personal experience viewing koyaanisqatsi again on my HDTV surround sound system was an entirely different experience having never seen it on anything but a SD tv with mono output sound.
Those are good things... IMHO.
p.s. it's the eve of xmas eve... are you really going to leave the blog with such a grinch-like post before signing off for the holidays?
Man, I'd be paying real close attention to "the wife" before going too far with this rant if I were you....
"Good thing" or "bad thing": It's the same damn question, Mark. Heck, the logical extension of your argument is why have a TV or movies or pictures at all? I can get the news from a pictureless newspaper just as easily, or I can read "Gone With the Wind" and just leave everything up to my imagination. That's a really poor example, by the way. "Gone With the Wind" may be the worst story ever penned by an American author. The big screen didn't improve on it much, either.
For photography, the argument would be similar. Why not just go back to the earliest days of film when resolution was rather poor. Why improve on it if it doesn't add anything to the experience? If I look at old images of Abraham Lincoln, I know who it is (even if it's a little fuzzy). Isn't that good enough? For that matter, why bother with technical improvements of any kind if it just lines the pockets of the inventers and manufacturers?
I honestly don't see where you're going with this. Who decides when there's "value added" and when there isn't? And who decides when a given technology is good enough, that any further enhancements simply push us into some undefind realm of the "hyperreal"?
Hopefully, that person isn't you.
Man who peed in your egg nog?
I can't get into the techno aspects of HD but I have a 42" and find it to be a much clearer, sharper picture.
Thats All Folks.............
I followed the links and looked in Wikipedia for "hyper-realism". Interesting stuff.
Mark, thanks for posting your photos and insights on photography (and philosophy etc) during 2009. I look forward to reading your blog in 2010.
As for HD, I have mixed views. It's human nature to improve things (a good thing) but it's also human nature to go to excess (not such a good thing). HD is fine per se so long as it's not at the expense of others things we value e.g camera features such as ISO and the wider aspects of resource / energy consumption.
Unfortunately, we can't rely on the "market" to guide the manufacturers into what's relevant.
Okay, can't not say anything. I read this as more about the Landscapist's curmudgeonly inclinations rather than the actual argument. As someone else noted, the argument is a bad one. Perhaps an argument along the lines of "it's not worth the money because of [x]" is perfectly legitimate (that's my line--I still have an old 27" Sony TV that's over a decade old), but that more detail is somehow a bad thing is silly. I'm not buying it.