Skyscript Astrology Forum

Does anyone know what planet rules cameras?
I am thinking of the moon. as a camera basically reflects. As far as I know moon seems to rule film as well, as it has silver as a basic component. But camera and film is not necessarily the same. Does anyone have views on this?

I?d go with the Moon, being persuaded by the comments Nick Kollerstrom makes in his article on the Moon and silver: http://www.skyscript.co.uk/metal.html

----------------------

"Astrologers associate the Moon with the faculty of imagination, of fantasy, as for example in imaginative writers or dreamy poets. The same property is seen in the way silver is able to create images. In photography it creates a memory-image of the past, in mirrors it gives an image of what is in present time before it. Today, most mirrors are made by coating glass with silver. When looking at a mirror we never feel we are looking at a sheet of silver. There is a certain receptiveness and passivity here, and similarly when looking at a photograph it never occurs to us that we are really looking at the differential precipitation of colloidal silver. We are not aware at all of the metal but only of the image it provides.

Silver is used by the cinema industry to form its 'images of the silver screen'. Silver has always been the staple metal used for making films, in colour as well as in black and white, and the film industry is a major drain on the world's silver reserves. From an astrological viewpoint, one can say that the dreams and fantasies which the cinema manufactures are somewhat lunar in nature, because the Moon is associated with dreams and the imagination. By its delicate and receptive Moon nature, the metal silver, in celluloid, will faithfully record light images. "

Thanks for input, both of you.
That is an interesting division between what a thing does as to what the thing is in itself.
Somewhere I have picked up the expression "camera obscura" which means dark room (if memory serves). Thats very Saturn.

One learns something new every day

I?m not sure I?m completely convinced by your argument. Why shouldn?t a camera be defined astrologically mainly by what it does in the same way that a mirror is defined by its ability to produce images (rather than its components or how it creates images)?

However, I have to admit that this black box / dark room / Saturn connection is very interesting; especially in regard to photography that requires a black room for processing. Maybe we should compromise and suggest a dual rulership like Culpeper often does with his herbs? I like the idea of the Moon and Saturn together.

I think the Moon and Mercury are better for digital cameras though.

Maybe we should compromise and suggest a dual rulership like Culpeper often does with his herbs? I like the idea of the Moon and Saturn together.

I was thinking this myself. Lots of things have dual rulership. Roses are Venus, but the thorns are Mars. Maybe the Moon represents the photograph. It is fun to try and determine the rulerships of devices of thing that did not exist when Lilly, Culpper, et al were writing.

But (ahh you knew this was coming) if we define the camera by what it does, then we might have to shift from time to time, say from film to digital images, from the Moon to Mercury?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Tom

It is fun to try and determine the rulerships of devices of thing that did not exist when Lilly, Culpper, et al were writing.

But (ahh you knew this was coming) if we define the camera by what it does, then we might have to shift from time to time, say from film to digital images, from the Moon to Mercury?

Exactly. I don't think there's anything wrong with that so long as the astrologer relates to the symbolism, understands its basis and puts it into the proper context. I'm sure Lilly, Culpeper, et al, did exactly the same -- "Onions are ruled by Mars because they are hot and burning".
"No, it is the Moon because they are round, white and watery", etc., etc.

I have studied western astrology for a very limited time (two years), and I have not read the article about silver and the moon... basically, I am apologizing for my ignorance before I reply.

I am also a photographer.


CAMERA

I would suggest looking at when the camera was invented in proximity to the astrological learnings of that day.

Camera obscura. John Talbot-first photograph... I think. I don't know the year.
The camera obscura, in the history of photography, was considered to be the first camera. It was a room built like a pinhole camera.

It relied upon the rays of the sun to penetrate a small hole in order to project an inverted image on the opposing wall.
I would interpret this as in terms of the MOON.

The suns bright blast reduced to a but a shadow of its potency = the moons reflection of the sun.

Reflection = inverted image

FILM

Which brings me to Neptune and the 'silver screen.'
In motion film, the image is reverted, and thus a reflection.

Neptune = an illusion

A photograph is an illusion.
As evident in politics, the way a photograph is presented, creates an illusion.
It is a stop in time that denotes what the photographer wants to suggest to the viewer.
It is recieved by the viewer, who uses his own point of reference regarding interpretation. Illusion?

Moon
True photography is silver based.
In capturing a *flick* of a moment in time, a photograph captures a rapid emotion.
Moon- fast moving and represents the emotions.

CAMERA

URANUS - the cameras history is based in science and new technology.
Photography was veiwed as an artform by those who first used a camera.
It was scoffed at by painters at the time.
They viewed the camera as a cheap imitation of what they could produce using paint.
Thus, the first photographers were 'radical.'

The mechanics of the camera are always evolving... and the device is always breaching the surface in its use of technology. In doing such, the camera lags behind the ultimate desire of what the photographer wants to hold in their hands.

MERCURY, to me, in its appearance, seems to mimic the MOON.
When young, I broke a thermometer in my hand, twice on purpose regardless of the 'warnings' of doing such. If you have done this, you know that Mercury appears to be silver. It slips and slides, and you cannot confine its shape (water moon)

MERCURY - The camera is held in the hand and contains small parts. It takes an exacting mind to design its small parts. The camera yields to, and gives its best to, precise manipulation of its parts.

Time for me to stop being long-winded.

My vote would be
Photograph: Moon Mercury Neptune
Camera: Mercury Uranus

Astronomers were the first to use camera obscura in order to view and record the movements of planets across the sky.

The first record of Mercury eclipsing the sun was recorded in this way.
And, this, gave way to a preliminary understanding of the actual size of the planets in the sky.

Merrill

primaldesign@mac.com

Hi,

For what it's worth, when I was studying Horary with John Frawley, this is one of the questions we were asked to consider (in a dreaded 'lost object' chart ). The answer which I did get on about my third attempt was given as Saturn.

Because it is a black box and it 'captures' an image or makes it manifest/tangible.

Hope this helps.

Yes, Saturn seems to be a reasonable choice with those qualities.

Thank you.

Lars