There is undoubtedly an ambiance to a place that cannot be captured with pictures. There are so many subtleties to a location that cannot be captured unless one is there—smell, temperature, and texture, among others. But in terms of the park, or an exhibit, I think the element that pictures can’t capture is simply reality. In a park, or any beautiful location, you can turn 360 degrees and see different views creating the whole picture; you really are under the sky, there is a stretch of grass to every side, and if you wanted you could walk a little ways and get new views from the park. However, if you are looking at a picture (even a film), you are limited to what that picture shows; it simply isn’t real, and if you look a few degrees left or right, you view the wall next the screen the picture is on, or something equally successful in reminding you that you are indeed viewing an image of something real and beautiful but not the thing itself.
The same could be said for a story. You are hearing a description of an event, but not the event itself. There are even more subtleties that cannot be accounted for in a story—you can’t physically see it, you can’t hear it (you may be missing out on a lot of tone, if the story involves people speaking), you can’t grasp what went really went on at all. You are forced to rely upon a very flawed description: it is a recount of what happened, it is from an individual’s perspective, it is limited by that individual’s capability of expression.
The even itself, and places themselves, simply cannot be translated; they must be witnessed.
No comments:
Post a Comment