At one point in her evening lecture, Dr. Freiman mentioned that all the best pictures and video in the world could not adequately convey to artists just what kind of environment 100 Acres is. She commented on the impossibility of translating a phenomenological experience.
Okay, first of all, I am just enough of a word freak to love an expression like "impossibility of translating a phenomenological experience."
But more to the point, why is it that pictures, even moving pictures with sound, cannot seem to convey all that there is to a place? Why do people when telling a story sometimes add, "you had to be there?"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
"To be" means more than a visual representation like a picture. This is obviously evident because people continue to travel around the world to see cities and landmarks even with digital photography easily accessible on the internet. There are even 3D representations that can lead on an interactive tour showing some of the most fascinating places on the planet. To be some place means to have experienced a moment in time, a moment that can't be replicated by any means. I am a photographer, but I know that no pictures can replicate what the presidential inauguration was like. It was fascinating. Although it sounds cliche, there was a certain feeling in the air surrounding all of Washington D.C. Until there is a way to completely replicate that, people will continue going places in order to have a full experience that place has to offer.
Post a Comment