Trophy Tourist Sites
Feb 13th 2003, 8:47 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Trophy Tourist Sites
There is an expression I've seen called "trophy tourism".
Basically it's the concept of "must sees". It's the "run
up take my picture to show I was there, go on to the next
place I've seen on National Geographic". I got to talking the other
day and a couple of us were trying to nominate the "biggest one".
Several categories popped up which made it tough. Ones like
"most visited" then there was "least appreciated" in the sense
of folks really didn't hardly look/understand/appreciate what
or where they were. There was "most pointless". Then there
was the "greatest tragedy" category in the sense of something that
should be appreciated but wasn't.
We limited ourselves to europe for a variety of reasons.
This was roughly our list:
Most visited: Eifel Tower
Least Appreciated: Roman Coliseum.
Greatest Tragedy: Michelangeo's David
Most pointless: Blarney Stone
The first one is probably quantifiable some how, anyone know?
As for the rest, I change my mind almost everytime I talk about it.
It always seems like Stonehenge should be on there somewhere.
Also, there is the 15 minute Louvre. And Big Ben comes to mind,
I just can't exactly find a category. But there has to
be some irony to the fact that loads of people go to see it, and
never have the foggiest idea that they never really see it.
Rome itself has a half dozen nominees as well. And an alternate
category of sorts was the "most missed site" in the sense of
something everyone walked passed without notice but should have.
Gotta be in Florence though. Florence almost ends up being a
trophy tourist spot all on it's own. Saw tons of folks there
who seemed to have no real idea why they were there, but they
had "made it".
Basically it's the concept of "must sees". It's the "run
up take my picture to show I was there, go on to the next
place I've seen on National Geographic". I got to talking the other
day and a couple of us were trying to nominate the "biggest one".
Several categories popped up which made it tough. Ones like
"most visited" then there was "least appreciated" in the sense
of folks really didn't hardly look/understand/appreciate what
or where they were. There was "most pointless". Then there
was the "greatest tragedy" category in the sense of something that
should be appreciated but wasn't.
We limited ourselves to europe for a variety of reasons.
This was roughly our list:
Most visited: Eifel Tower
Least Appreciated: Roman Coliseum.
Greatest Tragedy: Michelangeo's David
Most pointless: Blarney Stone
The first one is probably quantifiable some how, anyone know?
As for the rest, I change my mind almost everytime I talk about it.
It always seems like Stonehenge should be on there somewhere.
Also, there is the 15 minute Louvre. And Big Ben comes to mind,
I just can't exactly find a category. But there has to
be some irony to the fact that loads of people go to see it, and
never have the foggiest idea that they never really see it.
Rome itself has a half dozen nominees as well. And an alternate
category of sorts was the "most missed site" in the sense of
something everyone walked passed without notice but should have.
Gotta be in Florence though. Florence almost ends up being a
trophy tourist spot all on it's own. Saw tons of folks there
who seemed to have no real idea why they were there, but they
had "made it".
Feb 13th 2003, 8:55 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trophy Tourist Sites
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:47:07 GMT, me wrote
-snip-
> And an alternate category of sorts was the "most missed site" in
> the sense of something everyone walked passed without notice but
> should have.
Another alternative category is a more recent one: people who spend
virtually their whole holiday with one eye glued to the viewfinder of a
camcorder to record the trophy sights, and who see little aside more
than the captured image of the trophies that they're going to show the
folks back home.
I see this in London -- it presumably happens everywhere -- and it
always rather saddens me.
--
Cheers, Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
-snip-
> And an alternate category of sorts was the "most missed site" in
> the sense of something everyone walked passed without notice but
> should have.
Another alternative category is a more recent one: people who spend
virtually their whole holiday with one eye glued to the viewfinder of a
camcorder to record the trophy sights, and who see little aside more
than the captured image of the trophies that they're going to show the
folks back home.
I see this in London -- it presumably happens everywhere -- and it
always rather saddens me.
--
Cheers, Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
Feb 13th 2003, 9:29 am
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trophy Tourist Sites
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:55:03 GMT, Harvey V
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:47:07 GMT, me wrote
>-snip-
>> And an alternate category of sorts was the "most missed site" in
>> the sense of something everyone walked passed without notice but
>> should have.
>Another alternative category is a more recent one: people who spend
>virtually their whole holiday with one eye glued to the viewfinder of a
>camcorder to record the trophy sights, and who see little aside more
>than the captured image of the trophies that they're going to show the
>folks back home.
>I see this in London -- it presumably happens everywhere -- and it
>always rather saddens me.
I'm curious to know how you know these people spend even a major
portion of their time with eye glued to viewfinder, much less "their
whole holiday"; do you follow them around all day for days on end?
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:47:07 GMT, me wrote
>-snip-
>> And an alternate category of sorts was the "most missed site" in
>> the sense of something everyone walked passed without notice but
>> should have.
>Another alternative category is a more recent one: people who spend
>virtually their whole holiday with one eye glued to the viewfinder of a
>camcorder to record the trophy sights, and who see little aside more
>than the captured image of the trophies that they're going to show the
>folks back home.
>I see this in London -- it presumably happens everywhere -- and it
>always rather saddens me.
I'm curious to know how you know these people spend even a major
portion of their time with eye glued to viewfinder, much less "their
whole holiday"; do you follow them around all day for days on end?
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Feb 13th 2003, 9:55 am
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trophy Tourist Sites
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:29:59 GMT, Hatunen wrote
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:55:03 GMT, Harvey V
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:47:07 GMT, me wrote
>>
>> -snip-
>> Another alternative category is a more recent one: people who
>> spend virtually their whole holiday with one eye glued to the
>> viewfinder of a camcorder to record the trophy sights, and who
>> see little aside more than the captured image of the trophies
>> that they're going to show the folks back home.
>>
>> I see this in London -- it presumably happens everywhere -- and
>> it always rather saddens me.
>
> I'm curious to know how you know these people spend even a major
> portion of their time with eye glued to viewfinder, much less
> "their whole holiday"; do you follow them around all day for days
> on end?
You're absolutely right to call me on that.
It's a patently unfair deduction that it's repetitive behaviour when
someone has just walked backwards into me and other quaint types -- you
know: local colour, going about our daily business -- while they get
their shots.
It is entirely unfair to assume that since they don't seem to be paying
a lot of attention at that particular point in time to things which
aren't happening in their viewfinder -- I don't know: perhaps they
*are* paying attention, and fully intend to make life awkward for the
natives -- that they probably do it fairly regularly on their visits to
other landmarks.
I'm glad you've followed enough of them around to be able to correct
this misconception.
Harvey
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:55:03 GMT, Harvey V
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:47:07 GMT, me wrote
>>
>> -snip-
>> Another alternative category is a more recent one: people who
>> spend virtually their whole holiday with one eye glued to the
>> viewfinder of a camcorder to record the trophy sights, and who
>> see little aside more than the captured image of the trophies
>> that they're going to show the folks back home.
>>
>> I see this in London -- it presumably happens everywhere -- and
>> it always rather saddens me.
>
> I'm curious to know how you know these people spend even a major
> portion of their time with eye glued to viewfinder, much less
> "their whole holiday"; do you follow them around all day for days
> on end?
You're absolutely right to call me on that.
It's a patently unfair deduction that it's repetitive behaviour when
someone has just walked backwards into me and other quaint types -- you
know: local colour, going about our daily business -- while they get
their shots.
It is entirely unfair to assume that since they don't seem to be paying
a lot of attention at that particular point in time to things which
aren't happening in their viewfinder -- I don't know: perhaps they
*are* paying attention, and fully intend to make life awkward for the
natives -- that they probably do it fairly regularly on their visits to
other landmarks.
I'm glad you've followed enough of them around to be able to correct
this misconception.
Harvey
Feb 13th 2003, 10:06 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trophy Tourist Sites
[email protected] (me) wrote:
>Most visited: Eifel Tower
>Least Appreciated: Roman Coliseum.
I don't think so. But to each his own.
>Greatest Tragedy: Michelangeo's David
>Most pointless: Blarney Stone
Beyond all reasonable argument!
> The first one is probably quantifiable some how, anyone know?
>As for the rest, I change my mind almost everytime I talk about it.
>It always seems like Stonehenge should be on there somewhere.
>Also, there is the 15 minute Louvre.
Quite right. The Louvre is worth at least 30 minutes. It takes that
long to locate the Mona Lisa. The same rule applies to the Rijksmuseum
in Amsterdam: it takes 30 minutes to get to the Night Watch.
> And Big Ben comes to mind,
>I just can't exactly find a category. But there has to
>be some irony to the fact that loads of people go to see it, and
>never have the foggiest idea that they never really see it.
>Rome itself has a half dozen nominees as well. And an alternate
>category of sorts was the "most missed site" in the sense of
>something everyone walked passed without notice but should have.
>Gotta be in Florence though. Florence almost ends up being a
>trophy tourist spot all on it's own. Saw tons of folks there
>who seemed to have no real idea why they were there, but they
>had "made it".
I hope that you don't think it patronising if I say that I think you
are struggling a bit to make your point, but that I get the drift.
Often, I have better memories of cafés and restaurants than of the
famous monuments.
PB
>Most visited: Eifel Tower
>Least Appreciated: Roman Coliseum.
I don't think so. But to each his own.
>Greatest Tragedy: Michelangeo's David
>Most pointless: Blarney Stone
Beyond all reasonable argument!
> The first one is probably quantifiable some how, anyone know?
>As for the rest, I change my mind almost everytime I talk about it.
>It always seems like Stonehenge should be on there somewhere.
>Also, there is the 15 minute Louvre.
Quite right. The Louvre is worth at least 30 minutes. It takes that
long to locate the Mona Lisa. The same rule applies to the Rijksmuseum
in Amsterdam: it takes 30 minutes to get to the Night Watch.
> And Big Ben comes to mind,
>I just can't exactly find a category. But there has to
>be some irony to the fact that loads of people go to see it, and
>never have the foggiest idea that they never really see it.
>Rome itself has a half dozen nominees as well. And an alternate
>category of sorts was the "most missed site" in the sense of
>something everyone walked passed without notice but should have.
>Gotta be in Florence though. Florence almost ends up being a
>trophy tourist spot all on it's own. Saw tons of folks there
>who seemed to have no real idea why they were there, but they
>had "made it".
I hope that you don't think it patronising if I say that I think you
are struggling a bit to make your point, but that I get the drift.
Often, I have better memories of cafés and restaurants than of the
famous monuments.
PB
Feb 13th 2003, 10:07 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trophy Tourist Sites
[email protected] (Hatunen) wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:55:03 GMT, Harvey V
>wrote:
>>Another alternative category is a more recent one: people who spend
>>virtually their whole holiday with one eye glued to the viewfinder of a
>>camcorder to record the trophy sights, and who see little aside more
>>than the captured image of the trophies that they're going to show the
>>folks back home.
>>I see this in London -- it presumably happens everywhere -- and it
>>always rather saddens me.
>I'm curious to know how you know these people spend even a major
>portion of their time with eye glued to viewfinder, much less "their
>whole holiday"; do you follow them around all day for days on end?
They offer to show you their holiday videos!
PB
>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:55:03 GMT, Harvey V
>wrote:
>>Another alternative category is a more recent one: people who spend
>>virtually their whole holiday with one eye glued to the viewfinder of a
>>camcorder to record the trophy sights, and who see little aside more
>>than the captured image of the trophies that they're going to show the
>>folks back home.
>>I see this in London -- it presumably happens everywhere -- and it
>>always rather saddens me.
>I'm curious to know how you know these people spend even a major
>portion of their time with eye glued to viewfinder, much less "their
>whole holiday"; do you follow them around all day for days on end?
They offer to show you their holiday videos!
PB
Feb 13th 2003, 10:12 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trophy Tourist Sites
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:07:51 GMT, Padraig Breathnach wrote
> [email protected] (Hatunen) wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:55:03 GMT, Harvey V
>> wrote:
>>> Another alternative category is a more recent one: people who
>>> spend virtually their whole holiday with one eye glued to the
>>> viewfinder of a camcorder to record the trophy sights, and who
>>> see little aside more than the captured image of the trophies
>>> that they're going to show the folks back home.
>>>
>>> I see this in London -- it presumably happens everywhere -- and
>>> it always rather saddens me.
>>
>> I'm curious to know how you know these people spend even a major
>> portion of their time with eye glued to viewfinder, much less
>> "their whole holiday"; do you follow them around all day for days
>> on end?
>>
> They offer to show you their holiday videos!
I'm jealous: that's a *way* better response than mine.
--
Cheers, Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
> [email protected] (Hatunen) wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:55:03 GMT, Harvey V
>> wrote:
>>> Another alternative category is a more recent one: people who
>>> spend virtually their whole holiday with one eye glued to the
>>> viewfinder of a camcorder to record the trophy sights, and who
>>> see little aside more than the captured image of the trophies
>>> that they're going to show the folks back home.
>>>
>>> I see this in London -- it presumably happens everywhere -- and
>>> it always rather saddens me.
>>
>> I'm curious to know how you know these people spend even a major
>> portion of their time with eye glued to viewfinder, much less
>> "their whole holiday"; do you follow them around all day for days
>> on end?
>>
> They offer to show you their holiday videos!
I'm jealous: that's a *way* better response than mine.
--
Cheers, Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
Feb 13th 2003, 10:20 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trophy Tourist Sites
In article ,
Harvey V wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:07:51 GMT, Padraig Breathnach wrote
> > [email protected] (Hatunen) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:55:03 GMT, Harvey V
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Another alternative category is a more recent one: people who
> >>> spend virtually their whole holiday with one eye glued to the
> >>> viewfinder of a camcorder to record the trophy sights, and who
> >>> see little aside more than the captured image of the trophies
> >>> that they're going to show the folks back home.
> >>>
> >>> I see this in London -- it presumably happens everywhere -- and
> >>> it always rather saddens me.
> >>
> >> I'm curious to know how you know these people spend even a major
> >> portion of their time with eye glued to viewfinder, much less
> >> "their whole holiday"; do you follow them around all day for days
> >> on end?
> >>
> > They offer to show you their holiday videos!
>
>
> I'm jealous: that's a *way* better response than mine.
We have all walked through the Louvre behind a tourist who never once
looks at the art but sees everything through a video recorder etc etc
What I wonder about is - do they ever actually watch these tedious
things. A snapshot evokes memories -- a video just soaks up time IMHO.
Heck I have a video documenting ME and my trip to an exotic middle
eastern locale made by a travel companion -- and I am not even
interested in watching it through --
Harvey V wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:07:51 GMT, Padraig Breathnach wrote
> > [email protected] (Hatunen) wrote:
> >> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:55:03 GMT, Harvey V
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> Another alternative category is a more recent one: people who
> >>> spend virtually their whole holiday with one eye glued to the
> >>> viewfinder of a camcorder to record the trophy sights, and who
> >>> see little aside more than the captured image of the trophies
> >>> that they're going to show the folks back home.
> >>>
> >>> I see this in London -- it presumably happens everywhere -- and
> >>> it always rather saddens me.
> >>
> >> I'm curious to know how you know these people spend even a major
> >> portion of their time with eye glued to viewfinder, much less
> >> "their whole holiday"; do you follow them around all day for days
> >> on end?
> >>
> > They offer to show you their holiday videos!
>
>
> I'm jealous: that's a *way* better response than mine.
We have all walked through the Louvre behind a tourist who never once
looks at the art but sees everything through a video recorder etc etc
What I wonder about is - do they ever actually watch these tedious
things. A snapshot evokes memories -- a video just soaks up time IMHO.
Heck I have a video documenting ME and my trip to an exotic middle
eastern locale made by a travel companion -- and I am not even
interested in watching it through --
Feb 13th 2003, 10:27 am
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trophy Tourist Sites
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:55:42 GMT, Harvey V
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:29:59 GMT, Hatunen wrote
>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:55:03 GMT, Harvey V
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:47:07 GMT, me wrote
>>>
>>> -snip-
>
>>> Another alternative category is a more recent one: people who
>>> spend virtually their whole holiday with one eye glued to the
>>> viewfinder of a camcorder to record the trophy sights, and who
>>> see little aside more than the captured image of the trophies
>>> that they're going to show the folks back home.
>>>
>>> I see this in London -- it presumably happens everywhere -- and
>>> it always rather saddens me.
>>
>> I'm curious to know how you know these people spend even a major
>> portion of their time with eye glued to viewfinder, much less
>> "their whole holiday"; do you follow them around all day for days
>> on end?
>You're absolutely right to call me on that.
>It's a patently unfair deduction that it's repetitive behaviour when
>someone has just walked backwards into me and other quaint types -- you
>know: local colour, going about our daily business -- while they get
>their shots.
>It is entirely unfair to assume that since they don't seem to be paying
>a lot of attention at that particular point in time to things which
>aren't happening in their viewfinder -- I don't know: perhaps they
>*are* paying attention, and fully intend to make life awkward for the
>natives -- that they probably do it fairly regularly on their visits to
>other landmarks.
>I'm glad you've followed enough of them around to be able to correct
>this misconception.
I see you've clumsily changed the subject from whether they go around
"their whole holiday with one eye glued to the viewfinder of a
camcorder" to whether they happen to be paying much attention when
they do happen to have their eye glued to a viewfinder.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 22:29:59 GMT, Hatunen wrote
>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:55:03 GMT, Harvey V
>> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:47:07 GMT, me wrote
>>>
>>> -snip-
>
>>> Another alternative category is a more recent one: people who
>>> spend virtually their whole holiday with one eye glued to the
>>> viewfinder of a camcorder to record the trophy sights, and who
>>> see little aside more than the captured image of the trophies
>>> that they're going to show the folks back home.
>>>
>>> I see this in London -- it presumably happens everywhere -- and
>>> it always rather saddens me.
>>
>> I'm curious to know how you know these people spend even a major
>> portion of their time with eye glued to viewfinder, much less
>> "their whole holiday"; do you follow them around all day for days
>> on end?
>You're absolutely right to call me on that.
>It's a patently unfair deduction that it's repetitive behaviour when
>someone has just walked backwards into me and other quaint types -- you
>know: local colour, going about our daily business -- while they get
>their shots.
>It is entirely unfair to assume that since they don't seem to be paying
>a lot of attention at that particular point in time to things which
>aren't happening in their viewfinder -- I don't know: perhaps they
>*are* paying attention, and fully intend to make life awkward for the
>natives -- that they probably do it fairly regularly on their visits to
>other landmarks.
>I'm glad you've followed enough of them around to be able to correct
>this misconception.
I see you've clumsily changed the subject from whether they go around
"their whole holiday with one eye glued to the viewfinder of a
camcorder" to whether they happen to be paying much attention when
they do happen to have their eye glued to a viewfinder.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Feb 13th 2003, 10:29 am
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trophy Tourist Sites
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:12:27 GMT, Harvey V
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:07:51 GMT, Padraig Breathnach wrote
>> [email protected] (Hatunen) wrote:
it always rather saddens me.
>>>
>>> I'm curious to know how you know these people spend even a major
>>> portion of their time with eye glued to viewfinder, much less
>>> "their whole holiday"; do you follow them around all day for days
>>> on end?
>>>
>> They offer to show you their holiday videos!
>I'm jealous: that's a *way* better response than mine.
1000 times nothing is still nothing.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:07:51 GMT, Padraig Breathnach wrote
>> [email protected] (Hatunen) wrote:
it always rather saddens me.
>>>
>>> I'm curious to know how you know these people spend even a major
>>> portion of their time with eye glued to viewfinder, much less
>>> "their whole holiday"; do you follow them around all day for days
>>> on end?
>>>
>> They offer to show you their holiday videos!
>I'm jealous: that's a *way* better response than mine.
1000 times nothing is still nothing.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Feb 13th 2003, 10:32 am
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trophy Tourist Sites
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:20:40 GMT, Jenn wrote
-snip-
> What I wonder about is - do they ever actually watch these tedious
> things. A snapshot evokes memories -- a video just soaks up time
> IMHO. Heck I have a video documenting ME and my trip to an exotic
> middle eastern locale made by a travel companion -- and I am not
> even interested in watching it through --
That's raises an interesting point about the difference between video
and snapshots as memory aids/prompts
A finished video -- even if it's edited out of the shooting sequence --
is a linear thing: the earlier parts of the finished product come
before the later parts, and one either has to view or fast-
forward/reverse through other material to change the sequence.
Photos aren't like that: they capture discrete moments in time which
can be rearranged side by side or moved back and forward much more
fluidly.
I suspect memory better resembles a number of photogrpahs -- episodic
and time-changeable -- than it does a temporally linear piece of moving
footage. (That's my experience, anyway.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
-snip-
> What I wonder about is - do they ever actually watch these tedious
> things. A snapshot evokes memories -- a video just soaks up time
> IMHO. Heck I have a video documenting ME and my trip to an exotic
> middle eastern locale made by a travel companion -- and I am not
> even interested in watching it through --
That's raises an interesting point about the difference between video
and snapshots as memory aids/prompts
A finished video -- even if it's edited out of the shooting sequence --
is a linear thing: the earlier parts of the finished product come
before the later parts, and one either has to view or fast-
forward/reverse through other material to change the sequence.
Photos aren't like that: they capture discrete moments in time which
can be rearranged side by side or moved back and forward much more
fluidly.
I suspect memory better resembles a number of photogrpahs -- episodic
and time-changeable -- than it does a temporally linear piece of moving
footage. (That's my experience, anyway.)
--
Cheers, Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
Feb 13th 2003, 10:38 am
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trophy Tourist Sites
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:27:56 GMT, Hatunen wrote
-snip-
> I see you've clumsily changed the subject from whether they go
> around "their whole holiday with one eye glued to the viewfinder
> of a camcorder" to whether they happen to be paying much attention
> when they do happen to have their eye glued to a viewfinder.
I'm not going to take responsibility for your thin skin.
--
Cheers, Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
-snip-
> I see you've clumsily changed the subject from whether they go
> around "their whole holiday with one eye glued to the viewfinder
> of a camcorder" to whether they happen to be paying much attention
> when they do happen to have their eye glued to a viewfinder.
I'm not going to take responsibility for your thin skin.
--
Cheers, Harvey
For e-mail, harvey becomes whhvs.
Feb 13th 2003, 10:42 am
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trophy Tourist Sites
--------------090109070509000006010903
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
If you really want a good way to remember something extremely well, draw
a picture of it. It doesn't matter if you know how to draw or not, and
it doesn't matter if the drawing is a mess. Looking at something long
enough to make the drawing will make let notice things you would never
have otherwise seen. Taking the time to do a drawing will burn that
image in your mind forever.
Being an artist, I've always ben aware of this when I travel, but it
seems non-artists have caught on too. Yesterday I heard an interview
with Alain de Botton, the author of "The Art of Travel" and he suggested
the same thing.
Harvey V wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:20:40 GMT, Jenn wrote
>-snip-
>
>
>>What I wonder about is - do they ever actually watch these tedious
>>things. A snapshot evokes memories -- a video just soaks up time
>>IMHO. Heck I have a video documenting ME and my trip to an exotic
>>middle eastern locale made by a travel companion -- and I am not
>>even interested in watching it through --
>>
>That's raises an interesting point about the difference between video
>and snapshots as memory aids/prompts
>A finished video -- even if it's edited out of the shooting sequence --
>is a linear thing: the earlier parts of the finished product come
>before the later parts, and one either has to view or fast-
>forward/reverse through other material to change the sequence.
>Photos aren't like that: they capture discrete moments in time which
>can be rearranged side by side or moved back and forward much more
>fluidly.
>I suspect memory better resembles a number of photogrpahs -- episodic
>and time-changeable -- than it does a temporally linear piece of moving
>footage. (That's my experience, anyway.)
>
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ ~^~^~^~^~^~^~
http://www.ellieclemens.com
"It's not a game, it's not over."
Jean-Pierre Raffarin
--------------090109070509000006010903
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
If you really want a good way to remember something extremely well, draw
a picture of it. Â It doesn't matter if you know how to draw or not, and it
doesn't matter if the drawing is a mess. Â Looking at something long enough
to make the drawing will make let notice things you would never have otherwise
seen. Â Taking the time to do a drawing will burn that image in your mind
forever. Â
Being an artist, I've always ben aware of this when I travel, but it seems
non-artists have caught on too. Â Yesterday I heard an interview with Alain
de Botton, the author of "The Art of Travel" and he suggested the same thing.
Â
Harvey V wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:20:40 GMT, Jenn wrote
-snip-
What I wonder about is - do they ever actually watch these tedious
things. A snapshot evokes memories and I am not
even interested in watching it through --
That's raises an interesting point about the difference between video
and snapshots as memory aids/prompts
A finished video -- even if it's edited out of the shooting sequence --
is a linear thing: the earlier parts of the finished product come
before the later parts, and one either has to view or fast-
forward/reverse through other material to change the sequence.
Photos aren't like that: they capture discrete moments in time which
can be rearranged side by side or moved back and forward much more
fluidly.
I suspect memory better resembles a number of photogrpahs -- episodic
and time-changeable -- than it does a temporally linear piece of moving
footage. (That's my experience, anyway.)
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ ~^~^~^~^~^~^~
http://www.ellieclemens.com
"It's not a game, it's not over."
Jean-Pierre Raffarin
--------------090109070509000006010903--
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
If you really want a good way to remember something extremely well, draw
a picture of it. It doesn't matter if you know how to draw or not, and
it doesn't matter if the drawing is a mess. Looking at something long
enough to make the drawing will make let notice things you would never
have otherwise seen. Taking the time to do a drawing will burn that
image in your mind forever.
Being an artist, I've always ben aware of this when I travel, but it
seems non-artists have caught on too. Yesterday I heard an interview
with Alain de Botton, the author of "The Art of Travel" and he suggested
the same thing.
Harvey V wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:20:40 GMT, Jenn wrote
>-snip-
>
>
>>What I wonder about is - do they ever actually watch these tedious
>>things. A snapshot evokes memories -- a video just soaks up time
>>IMHO. Heck I have a video documenting ME and my trip to an exotic
>>middle eastern locale made by a travel companion -- and I am not
>>even interested in watching it through --
>>
>That's raises an interesting point about the difference between video
>and snapshots as memory aids/prompts
>A finished video -- even if it's edited out of the shooting sequence --
>is a linear thing: the earlier parts of the finished product come
>before the later parts, and one either has to view or fast-
>forward/reverse through other material to change the sequence.
>Photos aren't like that: they capture discrete moments in time which
>can be rearranged side by side or moved back and forward much more
>fluidly.
>I suspect memory better resembles a number of photogrpahs -- episodic
>and time-changeable -- than it does a temporally linear piece of moving
>footage. (That's my experience, anyway.)
>
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ ~^~^~^~^~^~^~
http://www.ellieclemens.com
"It's not a game, it's not over."
Jean-Pierre Raffarin
--------------090109070509000006010903
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
If you really want a good way to remember something extremely well, draw
a picture of it. Â It doesn't matter if you know how to draw or not, and it
doesn't matter if the drawing is a mess. Â Looking at something long enough
to make the drawing will make let notice things you would never have otherwise
seen. Â Taking the time to do a drawing will burn that image in your mind
forever. Â
Being an artist, I've always ben aware of this when I travel, but it seems
non-artists have caught on too. Â Yesterday I heard an interview with Alain
de Botton, the author of "The Art of Travel" and he suggested the same thing.
Â
Harvey V wrote:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:20:40 GMT, Jenn wrote
-snip-
What I wonder about is - do they ever actually watch these tedious
things. A snapshot evokes memories and I am not
even interested in watching it through --
That's raises an interesting point about the difference between video
and snapshots as memory aids/prompts
A finished video -- even if it's edited out of the shooting sequence --
is a linear thing: the earlier parts of the finished product come
before the later parts, and one either has to view or fast-
forward/reverse through other material to change the sequence.
Photos aren't like that: they capture discrete moments in time which
can be rearranged side by side or moved back and forward much more
fluidly.
I suspect memory better resembles a number of photogrpahs -- episodic
and time-changeable -- than it does a temporally linear piece of moving
footage. (That's my experience, anyway.)
--
~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^ ~^~^~^~^~^~^~
http://www.ellieclemens.com
"It's not a game, it's not over."
Jean-Pierre Raffarin
--------------090109070509000006010903--
Feb 13th 2003, 7:47 pm
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trophy Tourist Sites
"Harvey V" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:20:40 GMT, Jenn wrote
> -snip-
> > What I wonder about is - do they ever actually watch these tedious
> > things. A snapshot evokes memories -- a video just soaks up time
> > IMHO. Heck I have a video documenting ME and my trip to an exotic
> > middle eastern locale made by a travel companion -- and I am not
> > even interested in watching it through --
> That's raises an interesting point about the difference between video
> and snapshots as memory aids/prompts
> A finished video -- even if it's edited out of the shooting sequence --
> is a linear thing: the earlier parts of the finished product come
> before the later parts, and one either has to view or fast-
> forward/reverse through other material to change the sequence.
> Photos aren't like that: they capture discrete moments in time which
> can be rearranged side by side or moved back and forward much more
> fluidly.
There are some things that simply come out better as video - a panning shot
of a building (or, in the case of Carcassonne, a city) which would be an
insignificant line on still photo, even if you can get far enough away to
get it all into the frame, or a ship leaving harbour, complete with the
sound of its siren. However, there are also plenty of things for which a
still shot works as well, if not better. I now combine both with a Sony
DCR-IP7E digital video camera, which, being smaller than my 35mm compact, is
small enough to slip into a pocket. It will take 60 minutes of video on
MicroMV tape and a massive overkill quantity of more than 1,300 still shots
(on highest quality) with a 128Mb memory stick fitted.
Colin Bignell
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2003 23:20:40 GMT, Jenn wrote
> -snip-
> > What I wonder about is - do they ever actually watch these tedious
> > things. A snapshot evokes memories -- a video just soaks up time
> > IMHO. Heck I have a video documenting ME and my trip to an exotic
> > middle eastern locale made by a travel companion -- and I am not
> > even interested in watching it through --
> That's raises an interesting point about the difference between video
> and snapshots as memory aids/prompts
> A finished video -- even if it's edited out of the shooting sequence --
> is a linear thing: the earlier parts of the finished product come
> before the later parts, and one either has to view or fast-
> forward/reverse through other material to change the sequence.
> Photos aren't like that: they capture discrete moments in time which
> can be rearranged side by side or moved back and forward much more
> fluidly.
There are some things that simply come out better as video - a panning shot
of a building (or, in the case of Carcassonne, a city) which would be an
insignificant line on still photo, even if you can get far enough away to
get it all into the frame, or a ship leaving harbour, complete with the
sound of its siren. However, there are also plenty of things for which a
still shot works as well, if not better. I now combine both with a Sony
DCR-IP7E digital video camera, which, being smaller than my 35mm compact, is
small enough to slip into a pocket. It will take 60 minutes of video on
MicroMV tape and a massive overkill quantity of more than 1,300 still shots
(on highest quality) with a 128Mb memory stick fitted.
Colin Bignell
