'Because things don’t appear to be the known thing; they aren’t what
they seemed to be, neither will they become what they might appear to become.'
Posted by Thomas Scarborough
 |
| Command prompt |
I can't help thinking that this one is philosophical, but my mind is a complete blank ... I took it at a parade.
It is the Cape Town Highlanders regiment, photographed with a Leica C-Lux 2. I did not notice that I had captured these reactions, until I looked over the photos afterwards. One may click on the photo to enlarge.
ReplyDeleteOver time I've started to perceive this photo differently. Actually my first remark to Thomas was about an 'all seeing eye'. Now after your remark Chengde, yes, the woman observes the photographer, but what is behind the eyes we do not know. She might have her attention not on the photographer even while noticing him. The others listen, or watch something and her attention is drawn away from that as well. Maybe she thinks about what to cook tonight or remembers something from the past, she might be thinking she forgot to feed the dog, whatever, she might be observing something behind Thomas. Though the woman, being pictured, watches us and that is what she probably did not think. She can never know whom she is looking at though can be judged by those unknown eyes watching her. The brutality of photography? We see persons in a uniform, a woman watching in the lens; that alone gives us certain references and probably where most start and end to see this picture. Though the photo gives a proposal to doubt our references. The woman might have replaced her twin sister that day and is not a regiment woman. Actually, the woman is not who she appears and now will be taken as a regiment woman by us who can observe her. At the end, we don't know. To me, this picture gives the reflection to doubt before squaring a thought about it. It offers a story making. A reason why 'the brutality' of photography can actually serve to widen up visions that have become stuck too easily in believing what one sees.
ReplyDeleteOver time I've started to perceive this photo differently. Actually my first remark to Thomas was about an 'all seeing eye'. Now after your remark Chengde, yes, the woman observes the photographer, but what is behind the eyes we do not know. She might have her attention not on the photographer even while noticing him. The others listen, or watch something and her attention is drawn away from that as well. Maybe she thinks about what to cook tonight or remembers something from the past, she might be thinking she forgot to feed the dog, whatever, she might be observing something behind Thomas. Though the woman, being pictured, watches us and that is what she probably did not think. She can never know whom she is looking at though can be judged by those unknown eyes watching her. The brutality of photography? We see persons in a uniform, a woman watching in the lens; that alone gives us certain references and probably where most start and end to see this picture. Though the photo gives a proposal to doubt our references. The woman might have replaced her twin sister that day and is not a regiment woman. Actually, the woman is not who she appears and now will be taken as a regiment woman by us who can observe her. At the end, we don't know. To me, this picture gives the reflection to doubt before squaring a thought about it. It offers a story making. A reason why 'the brutality' of photography can actually serve to widen up visions that have become stuck too easily in believing what one sees.
ReplyDeleteOver time I've started to perceive this photo differently. Actually my first remark to Thomas was about an 'all seeing eye'. Now after your remark Chengde, yes, the woman observes the photographer, but what is behind the eyes we do not know. She might have her attention not on the photographer even while noticing him. The others listen, or watch something and her attention is drawn away from that as well. Maybe she thinks about what to cook tonight or remembers something from the past, she might be thinking she forgot to feed the dog, whatever, she might be observing something behind Thomas. Though the woman, being pictured, watches us and that is what she probably did not think. She can never know whom she is looking at though can be judged by those unknown eyes watching her. The brutality of photography? We see persons in a uniform, a woman watching in the lens; that alone gives us certain references and probably where most start and end to see this picture. Though the photo gives a proposal to doubt our references. The woman might have replaced her twin sister that day and is not a regiment woman. Actually, the woman is not who she appears and now will be taken as a regiment woman by us who can observe her. At the end, we don't know. To me, this picture gives the reflection to doubt before squaring a thought about it. It offers a story making. A reason why 'the brutality' of photography can actually serve to widen up visions that have become stuck too easily in believing what one sees.
ReplyDeleteThe arched eyebrow, the one-and-a-half-eyed stare, the downturned mouth: I see a quizzical look. I don’t see nefarious intent. I don’t see threatening intent. I don’t see begrudging intent. And I doubt she found reason to ponder much . . . beyond her momentarily piqued curiosity in who’s pointing a camera in her direction, and why. Indulging in a digression from the attentiveness of the others to her left and right. She’s in a military formation, so a smile would have been a no-no, even if otherwise inclined. So, ‘quizzically distracted’ is the label I’d place on this image; or, to be even more minimalist, just ‘quizzical’. A fun exercise in photo interpretation, no matter what.
ReplyDeleteI admire the person who wrote this post, you are so talented, hope you will promote them and become more successful. I do not feel sorry for taking the time to read this post, it is really nice and useful to me, thanks for posting it.
ReplyDeletepbs unblocked, kizi land, friv jogo jogar