Maybe it was the need for one-upsmanship as it existed when previsualization was first coined. In Gov.(military) work, the projects with the most syllables, wins! E.g., fuel cells twollable; su-per-con-duc-tiv-I-ty, seven syllables! Guess who won?Bob F. said:OK... The act of imagining a future event is "visualization". The word "previsualization" is not a valid word: it is semantic nonsense. If it means anything, it means "before the point of visualisation" which makes no sense in the context of imagining the eventual print that is intended.
Just treat it as a technical term rather than an English one....
Cheers, Bob.
The act of 'seeing' a future event is not 'visualization', it is 'prevision' as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary. And since 'prevision' is the root of 'previsualization', then 'previsualizaiton' is seeing a future event. In this application, 'previsualization' is the act of seeing a finished print before it is made.Bob F. said:OK... The act of imagining a future event is "visualization". The word "previsualization" is not a valid word: it is semantic nonsense. If it means anything, it means "before the point of visualisation" which makes no sense in the context of imagining the eventual print that is intended.
Just treat it as a technical term rather than an English one....
Cheers, Bob.
Bob F. said:Oh gawd... The fact that a word is in the OED, simply reflects that the word is in common usage. As "previsualization" is in common use, you would expect it to be in the OED. QED.
Also incorrect. Visualize cannot mean visualizing a future event. You are mixing the definitions of visualization and prevision. To visualize is defined as "To form a mental vision, image or picture of something not visible or present to the sight, or of an abstraction; to make visible to the mind or the imagination".Bob F. said:Visualisation is the verb form of "visualize" and it can mean imagining a future event or object etc. To visualize something is to create a mental image of it. Visualize is one of several synonyms for prevision depending on context (prescience, foresight, prediction, prospicience etc).
The verb form of prevision is: prevision. As you know, some words can be more than one part of speech.Bob F. said:I do not know the verb form of prevision
It's not nit-picking. I'm trying to establish the OED as a source\proof text. You tried to limit it's scope\aplicability incorrectly.Bob F. said:OK, so the OED contains words that used to be in common usage as well as ones that are: that's just nit-picking.
Here is a copy\paste of what I originally wrote (please note 'prevision'). I fI subsequently substituted 'previsualization', that was an error:Bob F. said:Earlier you wrote that "Previsualization is an English term for the simple fact that it's in the OED. And since it existed at least 400 years ago, AA and Minor White certainly did not invent it" but, now you say you can't find it in any dictionary. I'm getting even more confused than usual... I could not find it in any online dictionary either but do not have access to the OED here so was unable to read your observation for myself: did you mean "prevision" rather than "previsualisation" is over 400 years old & in the OED?.
Simple. Because if you want to describe a visualization of something in the future, you would use the word 'prevision' or one of it's true synonyms. It's like if you wanted to say 'apple' you would say 'apple' and not 'orange'. I believe in using the proper words and I use the dictionary as the source\proof text - not common usage. If that were the reference, there would be symantic anarchy, my friend, and you know what leads to. The definition of 'visualize' makes no reference to future images but prevision clearly does. While it is possible to visualize images and say they are future events (like fantasizing what the future would be like), it is not prevision (or 'previsualization') because there is no intent or expectation that it will come to pass. There is a clear distinction between the two.Bob F. said:"To form a mental vision, image or picture of something not visible or present to the sight, or of an abstraction; to make visible to the mind or the imagination"
Why does this definition of visualize preclude the visualization of something yet to be created? I think you are placing artificial restrictions on the breadth of the definition. At no point does it specify that the object visualized must currently exist.
The definition does not allow for 'fancy', it requires it. If it is 'fancy' then it is visualization. If it is foresight, it is 'prevision'. Totally different things. AA did not conjure a 'fanciful' image in his head and neither do I. It is a 'foresight' of an image we will make after the printing is done.Bob F. said:Similarly to the other definition, it allows for "fancy" ("imagination" in the previous definition) - i.e. something that does not exist, not necessarily something that cannot or will not exist. In fact, Websters definition of prevision ("Foresight; foreknowledge; prescience) is arguably further away from the accepted meaning of "previsualize" than Webster's definition of "visualize"...
Bob F. said:No one said they mean the same thing: context is all.
("synonym n : two words that can be interchanged in a context are said to be synonymous relative to that context").....<snip>
Who knows. He was a smart guy and he may have heard of the dictionary and actually researched it. He may well have said exactly what he meant.Bob F. said:I would also suggest that Minor White (or whoever) did not know of the existence of "prevision"...
I guess you speak for all English speaking people? For me, I prefer to use the words correctly - each has it's own specific meaning. BTW, the definition of a word is not decided until it's codified. People can make up whatever words they want and mis-use words and one day that may be recognized in a dictionary - certainly they are living documents, but once codified the definitions are pretty clear - certainly they are for these 2 words which have been around for hundreds of years. I see no need to re-define and mis-use them. Their meanings and distinctions are clear.Bob F. said:Ah - forgot to mention: everyone who does not use "previsualize" in this context uses "visualise" instead (inc St. Ansel himself in his books). As a word's meaning is defined by it's widespread usage then at this stage of the game, "visualize" is synonymous with "previsualize" (in this context) ...
Fair enough - as I thought, you accidently used "previsualize" instead of "prevision".mikewhi said:Here is a copy\paste of what I originally wrote (please note 'prevision'). I fI subsequently substituted 'previsualization', that was an error:
Now you are defining "fancy" in too limited a way. Webster's again: "An image or representation of anything formed in the mind; conception; thought; idea; conceit."Look at your own quote, where you literally spell out the difference:
From Websters: "Visualize \Vis"u*al*ize\, v. t. To make visual, or visible; to see in fancy: also, to see or form a mental image of "
The definition does not allow for 'fancy', it requires it. If it is 'fancy' then it is visualization. If it is foresight, it is 'prevision'. Totally different things. AA did not conjure a 'fanciful' image in his head and neither do I. It is a 'foresight' of an image we will make after the printing is done.
Of course context defines words! "I've had a hard day - I'm very blue at the moment" does not mean I have gone mad with a paint brush and a bucket of wode...No. If they don't mean the same thing, they cannot be synonyms - if they are used as synonyms in common usage then the ones doing that are wrong and need to read the dictionary. 'Context' cannot re-define words. The correct words need to be used in the correct context or valid discussions cannot exist - that's why semantics are so important.
Of course I do not speak for all English speaking people! Of course I do not mean "everyone" in a literal sense - it is simply a device to emphasize the "overwhelming majority of". It is simply my observation that I do not recall ever having seen, heard or read anyone use any other words when describing how they see a final print turning out. Actually, not quite true - I have seen a hyphen inserted: "pre-visualize" - but that's a whole new can of worms...I guess you speak for all English speaking people? For me, I prefer to use the words correctly - each has it's own specific meaning. BTW, the definition of a word is not decided until it's codified. People can make up whatever words they want and mis-use words and one day that may be recognized in a dictionary - certainly they are living documents, but once codified the definitions are pretty clear - certainly they are for these 2 words which have been around for hundreds of years. I see no need to re-define and mis-use them. Their meanings and distinctions are clear.
Paul Baker said:I think some of the problem here is that the word prevision has nothing to do with the disscussion at all. The word that has not been mentioned, as far as I can tell, is envision. Envision is a synonym of visualize. I think, then, that the word envisualize is what we should be saying instead of previsualize, because like many have said, it doesn't make a darn bit of sense. I hope this doesn't just stir the coals.
Paul
Dave Wooten said:This has gotten interesting but,
Where did Ansel come up with the concept of visualization?
c6h6o3 said:Probably a mutated extension of Stieglitz's concept of 'equivalents'. The print as simulacrum of what the photographer saw and felt at the time. He sees, or 'visualizes' it, if you will, in his mind's eye before making the exposure.
Pure baloney, in my always humble and unbiased opinion. The visualization takes place on the ground glass and only on the ground glass. What caught your eye and prompted you to set up the camera has nothing to do with the act of photographing once you're involved in finding the image on the ground glass or viewfinder.
Bob F. said:Fair enough - as I thought, you accidently used "previsualize" instead of "prevision".
Now you are defining "fancy" in too limited a way. Webster's again: "An image or representation of anything formed in the mind; conception; thought; idea; conceit."
Of course context defines words! "I've had a hard day - I'm very blue at the moment" does not mean I have gone mad with a paint brush and a bucket of wode...
Of course I do not speak for all English speaking people! Of course I do not mean "everyone" in a literal sense - it is simply a device to emphasize the "overwhelming majority of". It is simply my observation that I do not recall ever having seen, heard or read anyone use any other words when describing how they see a final print turning out. Actually, not quite true - I have seen a hyphen inserted: "pre-visualize" - but that's a whole new can of worms...
Mike, we are obviously not going to agree on this so to avoid constant repetition, to protect driving anyone who reads this thread from terminal boredom (of course, I do not mean that they will literally die - just to be clear...) I think you should have your final say and we can agree to let this drop at that point.
Cheers, Bob.
mikewhi said:Actually, I enjoy(ed) the conversation. I'll let it go and I don't need the last word. Thanks for joining in the discussion and I appreciate people who have the will to stand up for what they think. At least you didn't cop out and give some middle-of-the road compromise! Stick to your guns, man!
Now, what do we do with the guy who thinks 'equivalence' is the same as 'previsualize'? And 'equivalence'??? Where's my OED when I need it!
-Mike
Paul Baker said:I think there are two different ideas going on here if I am correct. There's the person who wakes up one morning and says "Wow! I just had the most amazing idea for a photograph. It had a mountain on one side and some trees in the front... I'd better grab the Sinar and some Tri-X, cause I have some driving to do!" Then there's the person who's already set up with the mountains and the trees and says, "Hey, this is looking pretty good. I think this would look good as a photograph. If I move over there and use the 90mm SA..." You see? The first guy previsioned it (I can verb it, can't I?) and the second guy visualized it. <snip>
mikewhi said:I still don't see how people don't get what White and AA and EW meant when they spoke of prevision. It's pretty simple, no mistery, a real phenomenon.
I'm not sure of the difference between how you understand what EW did and how you understand how AA and MW worked. Can you describe the differences? I think of them as the same mental proces of 'prevision'. Are you saying that EW saw the image on the gg first and then imaged in his mind and that AA and MW previsioned first and then went thru setting up the camera to make he image they saw in their minds? Is the only difference seeing on the gg first?c6h6o3 said:Weston, yes. I know what he meant and that's the way I photograph.
But AA and White were different. They talked about 'previsualizing' the print with their eyes, just looking at the scene through a framing card or viewing filter. Then they would decide what lens to use and set up the camera to try and capture what they had envisioned in their mind's eye. And I believe you can't do it. If you can, more power to ya.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?