Yesterday I wrote that "every photograph must be a confrontation of sorts." A friend wrote he noticed that in many of the photos I show here, someone is looking at the camera disapprovingly. It is true. Those pictures jump out at me when I look through the files. They resonate because there is something active in an otherwise passive frame. In the paintings of the old masters (and some who were not nearly masters), there is often one person in the crowd staring directly at the viewer. Often, too, the face is a likeness of the artist. I like feeling that the person looking at the camera is a version of me. When I go into a crowd with a camera, I feel there is the danger of being beaten or killed for what I am doing. It is a very, very difficult thing for me to do. But, I figure, there is something noble in the act even if there is a bit or a hint of a sacrifice to it. I kid myself (perhaps) that it is sacrificially "holy."
Yea, yea, yea. . . . If you disagree or laugh at that, you might enjoy this (link). I know many who would agree with that author, but I enjoy most my friends who wouldn't or who just don't care, those who know a bit about trying to perfect existence and what it costs. I don't disagree with the author. I just think it is one way of looking at the thing.
That is what I think about almost every argument, though. Some are more interesting than others. Some are better supported. But they are almost all destined to die and be buried in an unmarked grave. Or, perhaps, they are destined to disappear in a Facebook timeline.
The dictionary definition of desire should be "our own yearnings to which we would like to subject others."
We are all so full of desire.
No comments:
Post a Comment