I agree Frank. Let a picture stand on its own beauty. There few things less pompous than someone trying to find some abstract hidden message or a universal truth in every image. The same thing happens in literary work. I think it was JD Salinger, of "Catcher in the Rye" fame, that was perplexed by some of the ridiculous analyses done of that literary work. He said "Its just a story". All that mumbo jumbo you get in High School about literary motifs and the meaning of the stupid red hat and all that is just bullshit. If a photographer wants to create something with a deeper meaning, thats fine, we can find it and enjoy it, but lets not get into trying find meaning where none was intentioned.
BTW, Boris: your photo was beautiful. frank theriault wrote: > Boris' recent PESO (or was it a PAW?) featured at least two questions > along the lines of the above subject line. > > Which got me to thinking: What difference does it make? I very often > take photos which, ~at the time I take them~, I have no idea "what I'm > trying to say". I just take them, look at them later, and if I like > them, I print them. > > Is that wrong? > > Why does no one ask that question when they see a gorgeous photo of an > equally gorgeous sunset? What does a sunset have to "say" (except > perhaps, "isn't this beautiful")? > > I'm not being critical of Boris' two questioners, or in any way > implying that they ought not to have asked the questions, I just don't > understand why I see it asked so often with regard to some > photographs. > > cheers, > frank > > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
