According to Errol Morris, we have forgotten the relationship between pictures and the physical world. He says that we treat pictures as these cultural icons when they also serve as a presence that shows us the world around us. He goes on to say that iconic photographs gain that name by showcasing a specific scene or person that is so shocking in such a way that it tells its own story instead of relying on our knowledge of outside reality.
Apparently photographs are their own reality and that the world beyond those frames are cut off. I do not quite understand what he means by connection to the physical world though. I mean yes pictures do have a connection by showing us landscapes and people that we know were or are alive. They serve as a guide for us to see into that camera person's reality. But how do we make photographs iconic in a way that make their own reality? Is it all about the location and the implications behind the photo? Or can a simple photo of a puppy among flowers become iconic in its own way without relying on physical reality or the shock value that is attributed with famous photos?
No comments:
Post a Comment