[pure-silver] Re: Organic?

Organic, green, carbon-neutral, etc are generalised terms of commendation
which have been emptied of any specific meaning.

They are the functional equivalents of adjectives used in other contexts
such as "sacred" or "holy" (of a religious figure), "luxury" (of a more
expensive model of something), "high class" (of an escort service),
"executive" (of accommodation), "righteous" (of punishment), "nice" and
"genuine" (of people) and "natural" (of anything at all).

Claims in similar terms by suppliers in respect of their products are
generally to be taken with a grain of salt. Victorian-era lawyers used the
lovely expression "a mere puff" to indicate that such a claim was not
intended to mean anything (see Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company for a
famous contrary example).

Don Sweet

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeffrey Thorns" <puresilver@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 10:36 AM
Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Organic?


> Let me speculate a bit. And I believe the definition of organic is
> waaaay stretched from what it once was.
>
> You could say there are three parts to 'being organic';
>
>
> Origin (are the source materials close to their original form in
> nature? [without chemicals/compounds viewed as harmful/undesireable])
>
> Process (does the process [how they were grown, raised, created]
> involve use/addition of non-organic/harmful materials?)
>
> End-product/disposal (will the end of the product's life-cycle
> involve the use/addition of non-organic/harmful materials?)
>
>
> I believe people are hoping/believing that 'organic' will mean
> 'beneficial' to the Earth as a whole and to themselves individually.
> Or at least not harmful.
>
> In the case of produce/meat (vegetables, chickens, etc), this means
> no pesticides, fungicides, growth-hormones, etc. The idea being that
> using those substances will, at some point in the life-cycle of the
> product, cause harm, either to the producer, the individual consumer,
> or to the planet (effects may not be immediately obvious).
>
> In the case of photography, it's messy. It would be very difficult
> for me to imagine a photographic process (start to finish) that, in
> its entirety, is 'organic' or non-harmful to either an individual or
> the planet. Were there any poisonous chemicals used in the production
> of your camera, lens, film, enlarger, darkroom chemicals, etc.? Very
> likely, yes. That's almost a given. Were these chemicals controlled
> in such a manner that they will have no negative effect on the
> planet? Tricky. We will probably never know the answer, so all we can
> do is speculate.
>
> Much as I love photography, I cannot, in good conscience, think of it
> as organic. Somewhere in the process, there were nasty chemicals, or
> use of limited materials, or something, that had a negative effect on
> the planet or an individual(s). Hopefully, the companies involved
> have evolved to the point of minimizing the damage their processes
> create. So that, while some past photographic processes were very
> dangerous (mercury), going forward, the processes are as clean as we
> can reasonably expect.
>
>
>
> >Mark Blackwell wrote:
> ><SNIP Of Precise Thinking>
> >
> >>  It is one of the problems with language, especially the written
> >>  word. Context is often difficult if not impossible to determine. Yet
> >>  we should be as careful as possible to portray the meaning.
> >
> >
> >All very well said, and I wholly agree.  But the problem with the
> >term "organic" as commonly used is not that it is changing meaning,
> >it is that it is *obscuring* meaning.  This, no doubt, is in no
> >small part  due to the marketer of "organic" products who've
> >discovered that you can sell a lot with guilt and misdirection.
> >
> >
> >>  Now is a print organic or not. Well these are often the people that
> >>  would drive with their knees an inch from their chins in a Yugo that
> >>  gets 900mph at 900 feet per hour. What would I do? First I'd make a
> >>  print on fiber based paper and tell them everything used in making
> >>  the print was "All Natural" in that everything used to make it came
> >>  from nature. We may have doctored it a bit. grin.
> >
> >I rather like this.  To the best of my knowledge, everything in my
> >darkroom is "natural" (derived from nature), "organic" (produced
> >by carbon-based living beings), pesticide free (none need),
> >and free range (I walk untethered therein).  I wonder if I could
> >use this in the promotion of my prints ...
>
============================================================================
=================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.

=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your 
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) 
and unsubscribe from there.

Other related posts: