fad
Forum Pro
To say that images (for how are photos any different) cannot tell a story without sequence is silly.
He was of the time when the New Criticism was dominating literary criticism, especially of poetry. Per wiki: It emphasized close reading, particularly of poetry, to discover how a work of literature functioned as a self-contained, self-referential aesthetic object.
I was a follower of it in high school and college. One of my most brilliant teachers said that New Criticism was correct, but only if you already knew everything else. What he was saying, if you think about it, is that is not the correct approach to works of literary art. It is too simplistic and ignores many things that are true about language.
I will explain more later, but you are utterly and completely wrong, as I was when I was 17 about poetry.
Think about this: for many centuries history painting was considered the highest form of art. Landscapes, portraits, still lifes were considered of lesser artistic value.
So ask yourself, what was the relationship of history painting (when not a sequence) to story?
Think about HCB, for instance his photo of a bank run in China. What is its relationship to story?
Think of the photo in question here. One could look upon the scene as one of loneliness, but in reality that is not what it is about in fact, and there is not much in the image that actually supports that interpretation. What could the photographer have done to make that more a story suggested by the photo.
Perhaps the story of this photo is the story of the photographer not making a convincing story out of interesting scene. Perhaps he should have emphasized the surrealistic or mysterious nature of the scene. Perhaps the scene is not that interesting. It is, in fact, very hard to create a good photo out of found items on the street even when they strike you.
He was of the time when the New Criticism was dominating literary criticism, especially of poetry. Per wiki: It emphasized close reading, particularly of poetry, to discover how a work of literature functioned as a self-contained, self-referential aesthetic object.
I was a follower of it in high school and college. One of my most brilliant teachers said that New Criticism was correct, but only if you already knew everything else. What he was saying, if you think about it, is that is not the correct approach to works of literary art. It is too simplistic and ignores many things that are true about language.
I will explain more later, but you are utterly and completely wrong, as I was when I was 17 about poetry.
Think about this: for many centuries history painting was considered the highest form of art. Landscapes, portraits, still lifes were considered of lesser artistic value.
So ask yourself, what was the relationship of history painting (when not a sequence) to story?
Think about HCB, for instance his photo of a bank run in China. What is its relationship to story?
Think of the photo in question here. One could look upon the scene as one of loneliness, but in reality that is not what it is about in fact, and there is not much in the image that actually supports that interpretation. What could the photographer have done to make that more a story suggested by the photo.
Perhaps the story of this photo is the story of the photographer not making a convincing story out of interesting scene. Perhaps he should have emphasized the surrealistic or mysterious nature of the scene. Perhaps the scene is not that interesting. It is, in fact, very hard to create a good photo out of found items on the street even when they strike you.
