Sometimes I have the sensation that we pay attention in excess to flaws. Let me explain myself:
Broadly speaking we should sometimes take them as keys to state authenticity and not as heavy defects.
Maybe (IMO) the word “flaw” misleads us. Maybe another could be more appropriated (I assume that now is not time to change).
I wanted also to point out that the digital era makes easy to magnify pictures and we look at them as shown items were that way actually. Many things around us each day would look no doubt worse if we used a magnifier. The wrist watch I am wearing looks perfect, but if we observe it using a loupe it shows some scratches ¿Who cares in this instant? Nobody even knows (no way). Well, when doing a scientific approach one does, but watches and awards are NOT diamonds, and once a KC perfectly served to their purpose, even with some flaws. Thousand of pictures testify that. An iron cross is around 44x44 mm and not 150 x 150 mm. Cameras should help us but not substitute what our eyes see normally.
I know the importance of flaws, and the difficulty of using certain words, please don’t misunderstand me. I am absolutely not suggesting forgetting flaws, probably the opposite, but sometimes with another point of view. Take only the main idea to discuss.
I am absolutely not an specialist. Maybe the key is to ask ourselves if all flaws should have the same consideration (as signs or defects…). Reading in a previous thread that there are more flaws than those frequently mentioned (at least in KC) makes me wonder.
Broadly speaking we should sometimes take them as keys to state authenticity and not as heavy defects.
Maybe (IMO) the word “flaw” misleads us. Maybe another could be more appropriated (I assume that now is not time to change).
I wanted also to point out that the digital era makes easy to magnify pictures and we look at them as shown items were that way actually. Many things around us each day would look no doubt worse if we used a magnifier. The wrist watch I am wearing looks perfect, but if we observe it using a loupe it shows some scratches ¿Who cares in this instant? Nobody even knows (no way). Well, when doing a scientific approach one does, but watches and awards are NOT diamonds, and once a KC perfectly served to their purpose, even with some flaws. Thousand of pictures testify that. An iron cross is around 44x44 mm and not 150 x 150 mm. Cameras should help us but not substitute what our eyes see normally.
I know the importance of flaws, and the difficulty of using certain words, please don’t misunderstand me. I am absolutely not suggesting forgetting flaws, probably the opposite, but sometimes with another point of view. Take only the main idea to discuss.
I am absolutely not an specialist. Maybe the key is to ask ourselves if all flaws should have the same consideration (as signs or defects…). Reading in a previous thread that there are more flaws than those frequently mentioned (at least in KC) makes me wonder.
Comment