gorocks99;553876 wrote:If you want your daughter to remain nostalgic about her childhood, by your definition, shouldn't you be limiting the number of videos/photos/etc that you have of her?

Con_Alma;553878 wrote:I see. That's much different than what I thought you meant by nostalgia.

I can understand how the "items" may become less important because of their pure volume. Wouldn't that place a higher meaning on those things that triggered emotions of the past like scents, locations, music and the like?

Steel Valley Football;553920 wrote:In theory, yes. It's not logical or feasible in practice though, IMO.

Con_Alma;553933 wrote:Why don't you think it's feasible? Based on what you have shared it sounds like it might just be the logical thing to do if the purpose of pictures is to capture the past for posterity's sake.

I don't know that I've taken any more pictures of my kids than my parents did of me...at least I don't have saved any more.

I will admit that other people take LOTS of pictures of my kids while participating at sporting and school events. They are then very willing to then share them with us even though we don't ask them to. It's a nice gesture of theirs but holy smokes I don't need three to four pictures of the same football play or wrestling match that lay out every sequential development of my child.

That's not what I think will be remmebered. I think it will be the overall experience and the relationships that we formed.

ernest_t_bass;553936 wrote:We have many, many, many, many pictures of our daughters, many in the same outfit, same pose, same day, etc. I don't see the need to delete them... yet. Just gives us more options from which to choose, when we decide to print.

Steel Valley Football;553922 wrote:Yes, they could be.

I've actually thought about music as it relates to nostalgia too. One sec - got feed the six month old. To be continued.

Steel Valley Football;553969 wrote:...(i.e waiting on a DJ to play my favorite new song or hearing a song at the skating rink that I only heard there once a week).

I Wear Pants;553892 wrote:I'm not calling you stupid but I think that idea is a little bit. My pictures and cherished items from my childhood are such because they captured moments that I remember fondly. Not because there are few of them.

And I don't have to worry about the house fire scenario because I have everything scanned and backed up to several remote locations.

Con_Alma;553933 wrote:Why don't you think it's feasible? Based on what you have shared it sounds like it might just be the logical thing to do if the purpose of pictures is to capture the past for posterity's sake.

I don't know that I've taken any more pictures of my kids than my parents did of me...at least I don't have saved any more.

I will admit that other people take LOTS of pictures of my kids while participating at sporting and school events. They are very willing to then share them with us even though we don't ask them to. It's a nice gesture of their's but holy smokes I don't need three to four pictures of the same football play or wrestling match that lay out every sequential development of my child actions.

That's not what I think will be remembered. I think it will be the overall experience and the relationships that we formed not that fact that my son cut the corner with is head up while executing a double leg take-down.

Con_Alma;553948 wrote:I don't think that's any type of opposition to what I posted.

I am guessing you wanted those choices of photos because you chose to photograph them as opposed to us being given them unsolicited.

fan_from_texas;553946 wrote:I don't think nostalgia is dead. Even today, many movies/shows that come out are updates of things that were popular when I was a kid (A-Team, Transformers, Knight Rider, etc.). How many sports teams do "throwback days" now and break out the old jerseys? It seems to me that people are still trying to recapture the thoughts/feelings of childhood--with the advent of certain technologies, we're just changing the way we recapture those memories (so now we click through our pictures rather than listen to Grandma tell stories).

Steel Valley Football;553981 wrote:I just mean that I'm not going to try to fight it for the sake of trying to CREATE nostalgia for her (and him). I'll let things happen naturally. That's not the purpose of pictures IMO. It just so happened they have that effect on me and serve that purpose for me; naturally and not contrived by anyone.

berry;554006 wrote:Great Thread. Justin should archive this one.

Con_Alma;554004 wrote:I tend to agree with you that creating items for nostalgic's sake or avoiding them in an attempt to magnify potential nostalgia won't be the impact of those serendipitous stimulants; ie., music, scents, sounds, scenery, etc.

I'm probably not the best person to provide examples because it sounds as if I don't follow the movements that inspired your concerns.

I don't have 10,000 pictures or 200 movies of my kids. I don't want to forgo the experience of being there and enjoying it in an attempt to preserve it in some manner.

No picture or recording will ever do justice in my mind to that of being present when the event or activity takes place. By putting a mental focus on making sure I capture the moment with technology I take aware from the potential experience of simply being present in the moment.

Steel Valley Football;556152 wrote:...

Maybe 25 years ago when it meant lugging around a giant video camera, but today it's no trouble at all with an iPhone to press record and easily capture any event or moment....

Con_Alma;556327 wrote:You are assuming I have a mobile phone. I got rid of it years ago and it was very freeing.

Con_Alma;559267 wrote:Selfish? It might be but then again I don't have some obligation to others to be accessible.

I didn't get rid of the phone because it was freeing. It being a freeing event was simply a side result.

Steel Valley Football;559274 wrote:... What now?

Con_Alma wrote:...It's strange because my in-laws were shocked we didn't have video camera. I told I never thought we needed one. She, of course purchased one for us for Christmas two years ago. I think I turned it on once.

Because we had one didn't change our need or desire to use one.

Con_Alma;559282 wrote:Wow, that came across as aggressive. Was that your intent?

If you had read the thread you would know I have a camera. It's plenty small. How is the size of the camera a factor in the above stated explanations I have shared?