Comments on: Revisiting

By: Melanie Hulse

Melanie Hulse — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 04:29:54 +0000

There are a number of viewer/viewed systems that insist there must be an odd number of whatevers in view. I think these mandates — it works because of the singularity of the central image, because of the dynamism of the pair, because of the stability of the triangle — are a little silly. phooey. If “it works” it’s because it works. And if “phooey” is the extent of my intellectual reach tonight, I think it’s time to attempt sleeping.

be well, ether buddy.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 02:30:04 +0000

That’s a fascinating bit of linguistics I don’t think I ever heard before. Wikipedia says the dual (two in number) used to be part of Old English, though it now exists in only a few remnants like both/all, between/among, latter/last, either/any, and neither/none. Among modern languages it appears to be most prominent in Arabic.

Two of something is sometimes said to be bad in a photograph, as the viewer supposedly “wants” a single clear subject. But I think two can set up a very powerful relationship, which itself becomes the subject. I’m thinking of some of Aaron Siskind’s “conversations” abstracts; unfortunately, I can’t find a good example on the web at the moment.

Now you’ve got me wondering if I’m especially partial to pairs. That was also an important aspect of the saplings in a prior post.

By: Melanie Hulse

Melanie Hulse — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:50:57 +0000

Long time ago, in my going-to-the-ashram days, I took a week-long class in Sanskrit. We learned to chant the alphabet, which is a lovely thing, and got an overview of the grammar. Sanskrit conjugates singlular, plural, and dual. I’ve learned since that there are a few other languages that also recognize the significance of “we two” in addition to “I” and “we many” but I don’t remember what they are. I remain charmed by the idea (if daunted by the grammar). This post reminded me of that.