----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> There's fiction and nonfiction in writing. Roughly, many consider > painting and photography the visual analogs. The problem is that > nonfiction is rarely completely true, Quite true here; in fact, there are 2 distinct creative non-fiction camps: a)creative non-fiction that is devoted to the strict adherence to the facts, which when presented reveals a truth(s) & b) creative non-fiction with slightly less devotion to facts, but still driven to reveal the essence of an experience or truth of an experience. Rosemary Mahoney wrote a brilliant piece of creative non-fiction called "Whoredom in Kimmage: Irish Women Coming of Age" & at the reading I attended, she admited that not *every single detail* in the book was factually accurate, but most were (the important ones were) & the book did accurately capture the spirit or essence or truth of her trip to Ireland & her experiences there. I tend to side with approach B :-). >paintings can be realistic I went to highschool with a guy who used to take photos with his film instamatic then faithfully paint the scene on really large canvasses--his paintings were amazing--very realistic to say the least. I haven't thought about him in years--but this comment made me think of him. >and photos can be manipulated. We're just better at it now. I read a book called Special Effects in Photography, which came out in the late 70s or early 80s. The lengths film shooters went to for special effects were amazing. I don't know if we're better at it now, but I would agree we're faster at it. :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
