Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: documentation

Expand Messages
  • vinlandar <vinlandar@cox.net>
    Fin the Curmudgeon, ;-) Your idea of the possible self desception of seeing/measuring/photographing the item in person is VERY thought provoking, thanks!
    Message 1 of 5 , Jan 27, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Fin the Curmudgeon, ;-)

      Your idea of the possible self desception of
      seeing/measuring/photographing the item in person is VERY thought
      provoking, thanks!

      -Cahrlie


      --- In medievalsawdust@yahoogroups.com, tom@h... wrote:

      >
      > I would have agreed with you until I went to the V&A, the Mary
      Rose, etc. and saw the actual artifacts that I had been studying in
      photographs for years; they seriously changed my impression of them.
      The major difference was the sense or scale and proportion. Even with
      a scale in the photograph or notes that list dimensions, you just
      don't get the sense of scale that you do from seeing the real thing.
      I also noticed a LOT more in tool marks and surface texture than I
      ever discerned from photographs.
      >
      > However, in general I dislike the idea that primary sources are
      inherently better to use than secondary (and even tertiary) ones, and
      should inherently be weighted more. For example, let's say I go to
      the museum and see a cool chair. I measure it, photograph it, then go
      home and reproduce it in exact dimensions. Then I pick up one of
      those nasty ol' secondary sources and find out that the "original" is
      missing four inches of its original height, had the arms
      > replaced, and was originally painted red. In this case, the primary
      source may mislead me (unless my intent was to reproduce it as a 400-
      year-old antique), and I'd be foolish to ignore the commentary of
      people who have spent their lives studying these things. In my
      opinion, if we're scoring sources (and of course, I don't like
      competitions), I think we should reward someone for integrating the
      best information available, whatever its source.
      >
      > Ever the curmudgeon,
      >
      > Fin
      > (Tom R.)
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------------------
      > This message was sent from webmail.his.com.
      > http://www.his.com/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.