[ Post New Message | Post Reply to this One | Send Private Email to Mike Dixon | Help ]

Response to Big mums...

from Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com)
Wayne, Don't worry about being confrontational with me; I don't take it personally, and you manage to do it with civility.

You've misinterpreted what I meant, however. I didn't mean that the photo was artificial or inaccurate; I meant that the subjects had artificial qualities inherent to the situation: the girls are dressed up, neatly styled, and beaming for the camera, and the flowers are cut and stuck together in an artificial arrangement. It's "artificial" in much the same sense that dressing up a usually messy 4-year-old in a suit and tie for church is artificial: it's presents the subject in a way that, while it may accurately convey a certain aspect of the subject, does not present a very representative view of how that subject is most of the time. It's an temporary idealization. I don't mean this as a critique of the photo, but as an observation regarding the nature of the situation.

I used the term "prettiness" to draw a distinction between beauty and a more temporary physical appeal based on youth (or freshness for the flowers); guess I should have made that distinction clearer in the first place. I would not be surprised if both young ladies remain beautiful for decades, but as they mature, the nature of that beauty will change.

I don't think the value or worth of a subject is determined by whether it is pretty or ugly. And I certainly don't think that this photo is not as good because the subjects are beautiful--it does a wonderful job of conveying the situation. But the situation itself is about pretty appearances, and the various elements of the photo remind me of the superficial nature of the situation.

(posted 8574 days ago)

[ Previous | Next ]