On Sat, 6 Nov 2004 16:38:08 -0800, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snip> > > Bill, I believe, noted that he started his viewing on the right side of the > pic. This flies in the face of a couple of theories put forth here.
Well, it's not a matter of "theories", it's a matter of where one started (looking at the photo) I guess. <vbg> Yesterday for me, it was the brightest part of the photo, but who's to say where it'd have been on another day? I was in a pretty dark mood yesterday (I told you a bit about why off-list), and I've no doubt that affected how I viewed the world generally, let alone your photo. > > The beauty of a photo is that one can start viewing anywhere, and just let > the eyes wander through the photograph at will, stopping here and there to > examine a detail, moving back to encompass the entire print, averting one's > eyes and then coming back for a second look. Absolutely!! As you know, I love doing that with a photo - it's how the photo "tells a story". I wonder how or even if the story changes depending on what part of the photo one is drawn to first? > > I tend to see people first and foremost, in any photo. Even when looking > at a landscape I quickly scan to see if there are any people in the frame, > and am generally disappointed when i find none, even though none are > expected. I've never thought about what I look at in a photo. I just do. Interesting that you're aware of how you tend to view images. Mind you, self-awareness isn't my strong-suit. <g> Some interesting thoughts on viewing art generally, and photos specifically, Shel. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
