Does a collection (of anything) become stronger or weaker the more there is?
For example, a collection of Pez dispensers, one might assume, would increase in its overall value the more and more Pez one collected. Having all the variations of the Hulk Pez that were realised over the years is better than having a few duplicates of the Hulk, and certainly better than none.
Another example; your record collection. In my case, I’ve been collecting songs recorded as mp3 since about 1997. There was a time when I set up my first pc (a sweet dual Pentium Pro 200 mhz, 512mb, 40gb HDD– this was in ‘97 beyatch!) when I had to type into a command line and make this thing called the Franhoffer Institute’s mpeg 1 Layer 3 codec, and compress these huge audio tracks into 1/10th their original size!
Well, this collection with each new album, new track, new genre, new soundtrack, new stand up set… get a little bit larger, but ultimately better. It becomes fuller. More complete.
But, (and this is where my razor sharp rhetoric kicks) does a collection of say, photographs you’ve taken, get worse or better the more there is?
I’ve pressed the shutter thousands of times on a few cameras and I’d happily say that I’ve taken maybe 10 decent photographs. 10 from 10 thousand seems a little rough, but lets say from all these exposures I’ve made 10,000 pictures/images/snaps. But very few photographs.
And I guess my question is this: would it be better (to me, to anyone) if I only showed those 10 photos I was happy with, or show all the freakin’ photos all together?
Is less, more?
Evidently, I took the easier route; www.pbase.com/georgeaye
g