False: Every Photograph Tells a Story
Apr 13, 2016 08:33:44 #
blackest wrote:
I only know it from Ham radio,
In ham radio usage, a CQ call can be qualified by appending more letters, as in CQ DX (meaning "calling all stations located in a different continent to the caller"), or the ITU call sign prefix for a particular country (e.g. CQ VK for "calling Australia").
In ham radio usage, a CQ call can be qualified by appending more letters, as in CQ DX (meaning "calling all stations located in a different continent to the caller"), or the ITU call sign prefix for a particular country (e.g. CQ VK for "calling Australia").
:thumbup:
I'm not a ham, but learned Morse Code for a merit badge back in Boy Scouts. A few of the conventions stuck with me... CQ is one.
Mar 25, 2017 18:55:01 #
jaymatt wrote:
While I agree with Jay that not every photograph tells a story, and I believed some photographs do a poor job of telling their story, it's quite another thing to assert that NO photograph tells a story. That can easily be shown to be false. Just ask a viewer, "Does this photo tell a story? If so, what is the story?"Thank you. The idea that every photograph has a story is pure bunk. Some do have stories to tell, while others are simply pleasing photos, easy to look at. I think it's hard to find a bird picture that tells a story, or most of the landscape work. They are simply nice images.
Further, to argue that different viewers see different stories, or that viewers at a future time will see a different story, is not a useful argument. The very same thing is said about the written word. E.g., reviewers are taking second looks at Huxley's "Brave New World" in this week's NY Times book review section and seeing Donald Trump. Does this mean that book doesn't tell a story, or that it tells a story so powerful that it echoes in the present day and probably will in future days as well?
Mar 25, 2017 23:29:13 #
Mar 25, 2017 23:30:52 #
As a wordless medium of human expression, a photograph cannot tell a story in the conventional sense.
A photograph, however, does have a "visual voice," and may convey a message to a viewer. Yet, human perception varies among individuals; as a result, viewers will generate a varied impression of a given photograph.
Of course, a photograph may illustrate a written composition. This function happens because of the inherent power of a photograph to present with some accuracy a visual representation of a part of the composition.
As to the point of the passage of time affecting the message of the picture, consider the pictographs that ancient peoples composed on stone. Does anybody doubt that the first human viewers of these pictographs thousands of years ago differed from us today in their perception back then of these images? This kind of question answers itself.
A photograph, however, does have a "visual voice," and may convey a message to a viewer. Yet, human perception varies among individuals; as a result, viewers will generate a varied impression of a given photograph.
Of course, a photograph may illustrate a written composition. This function happens because of the inherent power of a photograph to present with some accuracy a visual representation of a part of the composition.
As to the point of the passage of time affecting the message of the picture, consider the pictographs that ancient peoples composed on stone. Does anybody doubt that the first human viewers of these pictographs thousands of years ago differed from us today in their perception back then of these images? This kind of question answers itself.
jgunkler wrote:
While I agree with Jay that not every photograph t... (show quote)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.