[Crm-sig] P62 Homework

martin martin at ics.forth.gr
Mon Jul 25 18:28:30 EEST 2016


Dear Simon,

On 25/7/2016 12:57 πμ, Simon Spero wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016, 3:39 PM martin <martin at ics.forth.gr 
> <mailto:martin at ics.forth.gr>> wrote:
>
>     Dear Franco, All,
>
> Dear Martin, Stephen, all :-)
>
>     The property "depicts" was meant to do it via a visual process,
>     in particular statues and paintings, that by their whole shape and
>     surface properties represent something. This means, by
>     surface properties and passive light reflection. 
>
>
> [all uses of "depict"  or "depicts" that follow should be understood 
> as referring to P62, possibly with the second argument unspecified]
>
> This roughly matches my understanding, which makes a couple of 
> Stephen's answers confusing; possibly because my questions were unclear.
>
> 1)  a picture on an e-ink display does not depict.
> This surprised me, as e-ink (and e-paper in general) work by passive 
> light reflection, and only require power to change the display.
> The intended contrast was with the active OLED display, which emits 
> light, and requires continuous power.
Well, the question is again not what means "depicts", but which 
defibnition is useful for cultural-historical reasoning. I'd argue that 
the thing on the screen of the e-paper is accidental to the device. So, 
it is simply inadequate to use a static property for what's at some 
instant on its screen. If it is passive or not, is not
the problem, but that is is not persistent to the object.
Further, an instruction how to draw something, in analogy to a file 
being instructions, cannot be regarded
a depiction in itself, I'd argue.
>
> 2) a picture that requires a UV lamp to be seen does depict.
> This question was aimed at clarifying whether the image must be 
> produced by (subtractive) reflection of incident light, or if 
> fluorescence caused absorption of that light was sufficient.
Well, why not, as long as it is an intrinsic property. Many visible 
colorants have fluorescence between visible
frequencies of light.
>
> 3) a ball-and-stick model of DNA is  not a depiction of DNA.
Well, here is a question of particulars and universals. I'd argue it 
does depict a structural abstraction of
some DNA molecule.
>
> I am unsure why this is the case; it is a symbolic representation, 
> created by human activity, and intended to be decoded using the human 
> visual system without the assistance of specific equipment.
> If it does not depict, then it is not clear that "Guernica" does.
>
> I assume it is uncontroversial that  "Photograph 51"  depicts DNA?
What sort of photograph is this? Visible light would not reproduce 
molecular dimensions. If it could
it would not depict DNA, but some DNA molecule, a particular one, or not?

Best,

Martin
>
> Simon


-- 

--------------------------------------------------------------
  Dr. Martin Doerr              |  Vox:+30(2810)391625        |
  Research Director             |  Fax:+30(2810)391638        |
                                |  Email: martin at ics.forth.gr |
                                                              |
                Center for Cultural Informatics               |
                Information Systems Laboratory                |
                 Institute of Computer Science                |
    Foundation for Research and Technology - Hellas (FORTH)   |
                                                              |
                N.Plastira 100, Vassilika Vouton,             |
                 GR70013 Heraklion,Crete,Greece               |
                                                              |
              Web-site: http://www.ics.forth.gr/isl           |
--------------------------------------------------------------

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ics.forth.gr/pipermail/crm-sig/attachments/20160725/41ccff46/attachment.html>


More information about the Crm-sig mailing list