In a message dated 12/7/09 4:32:58 PM, Lslbsc2 writes:
> I too thought at first that this was another attempt at solving problems > which were not there but the book has excellent pictures so I got it > anyway. On further acquaintance even the prose proved useful. > > In an important sense, if you're pleased with your return on the money and time invested in the book, that's sufficient rebuttal to my argument that it'd be a waste (for you). There's an unexpected parallel with an essay by Bertrand Russell titled "On Denoting". He wrote it in 1905, and for a long time it was thought an Olympian achievement in philosophy. I for one think it was disastrously wrong in almost every facet, but still it's interesting in good part for its very errors, and useful as a demonstration of the danger of articulateness. Russell was an engaging and persuasive writer, and it's intriguing to watch him make "beautiful" arguments -- that were totally wrong. I consider it necessary reading for all grad students in philosophy. Eventually I hope you'll tell us of any valuable insight Berger offers to the "pose" that wouldn't have come to you on your own with three minutes of reflection. I don't accept that my reflections on the standard high school yearbook "pose" of my youth are irrelevant. They were meant as portraits -- and the pose was never left to the sitter. Karsh's near-wrestling match with Churchill to get the "pose" he wanted is legendary, and it may offer practical tips to a portraitist -- but I find no profound truth about "pose" in the episode. I knew Arnold Newman, and I truly felt he deserved the honorific title 'Artist' even though he was a photographer, not a painter. He was a master of the pose as a composition of sitter and setting. But my remark there is "obvious". You'll enjoy going here: http://www.artphotogallery.org/02/artphotogallery/photographers/arnold_newma n_12.html
