| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/16/2005 04:39:42 PM · #26 |
Just for fun: Found a definition on Dictionary.com that seems to accept even the simple disguise as camouflage... (number 4) ;-)
camouflage
n 1: an outward semblance that misrepresents the true nature of something; "the theatrical notion of disguise is always associated with catastrophe in his stories" [syn: disguise] 2: fabric dyed with splotches of green and brown and black and tan; intended to make the wearer of a garment made of this fabric hard to distinguish from the background [syn: camo] 3: device or stratagem for concealment or deceit 4: the act of concealing the identity of something by modifying its appearance; "he is a master of disguise" [syn: disguise] v : disguise by camouflaging; exploit the natural surroundings to disguise something; "The troops camoflaged themselves before they went into enemy territory"
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 06:50:38 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by srugolo:
Just for fun: Found a definition on Dictionary.com that seems to accept even the simple disguise as camouflage... (number 4) ;-)
camouflage
n 1: an outward semblance that misrepresents the true nature of something; "the theatrical notion of disguise is always associated with catastrophe in his stories" [syn: disguise] 2: fabric dyed with splotches of green and brown and black and tan; intended to make the wearer of a garment made of this fabric hard to distinguish from the background [syn: camo] 3: device or stratagem for concealment or deceit 4: the act of concealing the identity of something by modifying its appearance; "he is a master of disguise" [syn: disguise] v : disguise by camouflaging; exploit the natural surroundings to disguise something; "The troops camoflaged themselves before they went into enemy territory" |
But don't try and tell those that know better. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 07:54:33 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
As usual there are members who have a preconceived meaning about all that touches their lives. They dwell within the walls they create and act accordingly. This gives way to interpretations that are constricted. It happens all the time.
...The intent of this challenge was not to make an image where nobody can find it... |
Just to play devil's advocate here, when you speak to tell us what the "intent" of the challenge was, aren't you applying YOUR preconceptions, Daniel?
Robt. |
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes Robert, I love devil's advocate. And yes, I have a fair response. First, I have stopped being dead sure about everything around me. I always try to reach past the limitations of my views and beliefs. In short, I strive to be as broad as logic will allow and believe me, I often have to accept things that are not dear to me. When younger, I blindly challenged authority and all belief systems. Now that I have mellowed I see my earlier folly. So yes, while I present you my world, which like all, has fences somewhere, these fences are so far away and the more I age the more I push these demarcating hindrances further. Which means, you need not be 100% exact in your words as the chances are that I will read your heart. Our relief in all definitions that lie in concrete is the poetic license to break the seriousness and break the chain of constraints. A challenge can be interpreted all left brain or all right brain or somewhere in between. The three have validity.
Message edited by author 2005-11-16 22:17:04. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 08:16:18 PM · #29 |
Isn't this one of those "trying to sway voters" threads that I keep reading about?
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 08:31:22 PM · #30 |
Be that as it may, and a good point too, but a disguise is just a costume when there is no refernce point to hiding in the midst of something. If it is meant to make you blend into the crowd, and is shown as such, then it becomes camoflauge.
I doubt anyone in a horse cosutme disguise placed in the middle of a sheep pen, could be considered camoflaged. Place that same cosutumed person in a horse pen, and then you have camouflage.
Again, someone dressed as a bush in the jungle or forest would be camoflaged, but would the same be a sore thumb in the middle of Times Square? I think so.
So the question is: does camouflage need a reference point?
In my view, it's about the purpose of the thing. If camoflage is to hide something, then something not specifically called camouflage (i.e. military and hunting outfits in traditional camo patterns), and set in the wrong context is simply a costume. Their intent may be to go to the forest or the horse pen, but sitting on a couch in front of a TV, they're just crazy people (or really fun people) who have a costume on.
Message edited by author 2005-11-16 20:34:28.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 08:32:54 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by UNCLEBRO:
Isn't this one of those "trying to sway voters" threads that I keep reading about? |
I don't think so, it just seems a seeking thread to discuss how one should vote is all. Kind of a sounding board for ideas to me. Better to discuss any reservations here, than to vote and then realize you were wrong later.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 08:35:15 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by UNCLEBRO:
Isn't this one of those "trying to sway voters" threads that I keep reading about? |
I think it is. But I also think that it is trying to sway them in the right direction, that of accepting disguise as meeting the challenge topic in camouflage. The OP was reacting to some comments that went the other way on that point. I suspect those commenters just read the challenge's title and not it's details.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 08:36:30 PM · #33 |
i completely agree with you, i posted kobe memorial for landscape challenge and i got lot of comment the photograph of the building is not landscape. But as i remeber i took the photograph because the landscape in front of the building was visible in the reflection. And the photo shows the time and year when the earth quake hit. I thought its great photo because that landscape was completely distroyed by earth quake and now its standing again. In all that photo has strong message. What i got for that 3.8 score. People have preconcieved idea that a landscape should be scenery otherwise its not a landscape. I got few good comments too, and some people liked the idea.
But most of the people vote for what pleases their eyes. It kills the artist in you. That was my first challenge and now for single light source i posted a bullshit photograph, and yes that has far greater score than the one i posted for landscape challenge.
its all part of game.
Originally posted by keegbow:
A lot of voters don't look past the challenge title and have a pre-conceived idea what that means and vote accordingly.
I think there is a lot more to camouflage then blending into the surrounds and yes disguise is an integral part of camouflage.
Unfortunately this is a pretty conservative photographic forum and those who dare to be different get hit hard in the voting.
I think Daniel summed it up perfectly I advise all voters to read his post. |
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 08:50:53 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
It kills the artist in you. That was my first challenge and now for single light source i posted a bullshit photograph, and yes that has far greater score than the one i posted for landscape challenge. its all part of game.
|
If you read this site's name, it says dpchallenge.com if you treat it as a challenge to take the kind of picture the challenge asks for, you actually push yourself further than your current creative tendancies currently have. If you refuse to broaden your horizons, and try to bring your vision to the table in a ways that actually fit the challenges, then of course you'll get voted down. The real challenge on this site half the time it seems is to get past your own ego and keep pushing to make your product have more mass appeal, while being creative. This is a much harder thing to do than simple placing what you already know on the table and expecting others to simply "get it". There's no point to having an artistic language that no one else speaks.
Message edited by author 2005-11-16 20:51:26.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 08:51:40 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Be that as it may, and a good point too, but a disguise is just a costume when there is no refernce point to hiding in the midst of something. If it is meant to make you blend into the crowd, and is shown as such, then it becomes camoflauge.
I doubt anyone in a horse cosutme disguise placed in the middle of a sheep pen, could be considered camoflaged. Place that same cosutumed person in a horse pen, and then you have camouflage.
Again, someone dressed as a bush in the jungle or forest would be camoflaged, but would the same be a sore thumb in the middle of Times Square? I think so.
So the question is: does camouflage need a reference point?
In my view, it's about the purpose of the thing. If camoflage is to hide something, then something not specifically called camouflage (i.e. military and hunting outfits in traditional camo patterns), and set in the wrong context is simply a costume. Their intent may be to go to the forest or the horse pen, but sitting on a couch in front of a TV, they're just crazy people (or really fun people) who have a costume on. |
The person in the custom is in disguise and is a misrepresentation no matter where he is.
"Camouflage is used to conceal something through the use of disguise, coloring or misrepresentation." |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 08:53:55 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
The person in the custom is in disguise and is a misrepresentation no matter where he is.
"Camouflage is used to conceal something through the use of disguise, coloring or misrepresentation." |
I think that wod "conceal" seal the deal on my point. Mis-representation without concealment is not camouflage.
Message edited by author 2005-11-16 20:54:09.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 08:56:54 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by keegbow:
The person in the custom is in disguise and is a misrepresentation no matter where he is.
"Camouflage is used to conceal something through the use of disguise, coloring or misrepresentation." |
I think that wod "conceal" seal the deal on my point. Mis-representation without concealment is not camouflage. |
Isn't the person being concealed by the disguise |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:01:09 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by keegbow:
The person in the custom is in disguise and is a misrepresentation no matter where he is.
"Camouflage is used to conceal something through the use of disguise, coloring or misrepresentation." |
I think that wod "conceal" seal the deal on my point. Mis-representation without concealment is not camouflage. |
Isn't the person being concealed by the disguise |
If I stripped you naked and tarred and featherd you, I doubt anyone would miss you in a crowd dude. Yeah you'd be "concealed" in a sense, but you'd actually stick out more. Someone dressed normally in a crowd of people would be more "concealed" than a person dressed as a dominatrix right? It's still all about context.
Message edited by author 2005-11-16 21:01:48.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:04:44 PM · #39 |
All I'm sayying is be a little open minded. To quote Daniel is how I will sum it up:
A challenge can be interpreted all left brain or all right brain or somewhere in between. The three have validity. |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:15:11 PM · #40 |
wavelength - You've hit it on the head with your post. One of the key points you make is in favor of a disguise, but only when the disguise is meant to camouflage or hide the item thru concealment (key word).
Those looking for an argument/definition of disguise in the context of this challenge (Camouflage) should look no further than this excerpt from the below quote: "If it is meant to make you blend into the crowd, and is shown as such, then it becomes camoflauge." You could subsitute the word crowd with environment, surroundings, etc...
The key is about camouflage...blending in...no matter which way you get there.
Originally posted by wavelength:
Be that as it may, and a good point too, but a disguise is just a costume when there is no refernce point to hiding in the midst of something. If it is meant to make you blend into the crowd, and is shown as such, then it becomes camoflauge.
I doubt anyone in a horse cosutme disguise placed in the middle of a sheep pen, could be considered camoflaged. Place that same cosutumed person in a horse pen, and then you have camouflage.
Again, someone dressed as a bush in the jungle or forest would be camoflaged, but would the same be a sore thumb in the middle of Times Square? I think so.
So the question is: does camouflage need a reference point?
In my view, it's about the purpose of the thing. If camoflage is to hide something, then something not specifically called camouflage (i.e. military and hunting outfits in traditional camo patterns), and set in the wrong context is simply a costume. Their intent may be to go to the forest or the horse pen, but sitting on a couch in front of a TV, they're just crazy people (or really fun people) who have a costume on. |
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:17:52 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
All I'm sayying is be a little open minded. To quote Daniel is how I will sum it up:
A challenge can be interpreted all left brain or all right brain or somewhere in between. The three have validity. |
So, I'm right then and so are you? If I'm right, then why tell me I'm wrong. If you tell me I'm right, you're right, but if I say I'm right, I'm wrong?
Usually, in real life, one side ends up wrong. If you want to forget the definitions of words, then whatever, but why have a challenge description? I understand being a little TOO literal, and I don't try to be, nor do I vote down good pictures that were a little outside the box either. But if you're asking what the definition of camouflage is, it's either defined or esoteric. Love is esoteric, camouflage is pretty specific, and can only be argued to a point.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:22:27 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by keegbow:
All I'm sayying is be a little open minded. To quote Daniel is how I will sum it up:
A challenge can be interpreted all left brain or all right brain or somewhere in between. The three have validity. |
So, I'm right then and so are you? If I'm right, then why tell me I'm wrong. If you tell me I'm right, you're right, but if I say I'm right, I'm wrong?
Usually, in real life, one side ends up wrong. If you want to forget the definitions of words, then whatever, but why have a challenge description? I understand being a little TOO literal, and I don't try to be, nor do I vote down good pictures that were a little outside the box either. But if you're asking what the definition of camouflage is, it's either defined or esoteric. Love is esoteric, camouflage is pretty specific, and can only be argued to a point. |
Can't you see there is no right and wrong ? |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:23:29 PM · #43 |
To further pontificate, the rules of logic lead to the fact that "all viewpoints are right" isa wrong idea.
If you say everyone is right in a situation, and the others say you're wrong, the statement negates itself in that, while you have to now accept thier viewpoint is right, they have made no exclusions upon themselves to accept your viewpoint. But, since you have now essentially conceded that they are right by rote, then you are the only one left wrong in the situation, and that means that your statement that everyone is right becomes wrong.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:24:38 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
Can't you see there is no right and wrong ? |
No. But since you think I'm right, then what are you trying to convince me of?
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:26:24 PM · #45 |
Wait, if everything is right, then how can there be no right and wrong. Without wrong, can there BE a right?
edit. if there is no right or wrong, then what you're saying is that everything means nothing. If you're telling me nothing, then I'd have to say you're right.
Message edited by author 2005-11-16 21:28:03.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:28:36 PM · #46 |
thats why we have fuzzy logic, we can't say everythign in terms of right and wrong. If you say things from different angle you could both be right.
Originally posted by wavelength:
Wait, if everything is right, then how can there be no right and wrong. Without wrong, can there BE a right? |
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:29:56 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
thats why we have fuzzy logic, we can't say everythign in terms of right and wrong. If you say things from different angle you could both be right.
Originally posted by wavelength:
Wait, if everything is right, then how can there be no right and wrong. Without wrong, can there BE a right? |
|
Ah, but it's not about my viewpoint is it. If you were able to see from all viewpoints, you could see that only one of those viewpoints is actually thye correct one.
ed - which means that something is right, so the viewpoint that everyithing is right can't be right.
Message edited by author 2005-11-16 21:33:26.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:37:04 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by UNCLEBRO:
Isn't this one of those "trying to sway voters" threads that I keep reading about? |
nah its one of those "english isnt my first language, but if i ask for help it turns itno a how should we vote threads" ;) |
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:41:04 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
Originally posted by UNCLEBRO:
Isn't this one of those "trying to sway voters" threads that I keep reading about? |
nah its one of those "english isnt my first language, but if i ask for help it turns itno a how should we vote threads" ;) |
and then some dork like me get's into philosophy and it just dies.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2005 09:48:29 PM · #50 |
Y'all can spin all the wordwebs and definitions you want, but in the end the nature of "camouflage" is to conceal from view and the nature of "disguise" is to hide the essence of. Sure, these may overlap from time to time, but they are NOT the same thing.
Robt. |
|
