We shape the world and the world shapes us.
The doctor, the pornographer, the artist…all three make
images of the same human form. Three different points
of view; Three different photos or sketches or paintings.
So what then makes a good image? I would say, not just
one which demonstrates perfect technique and composition,
i.e., one that is in harmony with both medium and subject
the as well as context in which it is seen. What I want is
something more. What I want is the lens that looks both
ways, that is:—enlightens both subject AND the eye that
[NOTE: At present, we have no word for a designed artifact
that synergistically makes life better both outwardly AND
inwardly, say, by simply following the sun and eschewing
dimentia fossilis, while at the same time making consciousness,
simply by using it, a little bit less disorderly, a little bit less
violent. (A bicycle, a violin, or a Bucky Fuller-style dome tent,
are good examples of this.) Similarly, we have no word for an
image, as I’m suggesting here, that looks both ways. The former
I think we might call, honoring Fuller, a synerfact, as a composite
of synergy and artifact. Its opposite might be called an antifact.
(Say, like a gun, or dollar bill, or car.) I haven’t come up with
anything for the latter, yet….]