(Untitled)

[birchswinger3]

Siegfried (however the hell you spell that) Kracauer discussed the photographic portrait as a collection of all the transient, incidental, non-essential details of a person. Most salient in the picture are the antiquated fashions, the long gloves, the absurd hairstyles. You see your grandmother not as you knew her, but free of wrinkles, virtually

Comments

[foxfour]

i take great issue with the idea that the pieces of the past are foreign and mean nothing to [me]. some of us live very much with an awareness of the past, and a feeling of it as real. such a statement, on kracauer's part, seems painfully shallow and unconnected.

which leads me to my other objection: it's all very well to talk of grand universal experience, but such things are made real by quotidian details and mundane elements. admittedly, i have a connectionist approach to AI, and it colors my thoughts on many subjects, but i think that the universal itself cannot be described so much as alluded to by mundane things.

of course, all that aside, i still don't read most of my friends page. something's gotta stand out as interesting. but if people stopped speaking unless they would say something profound, they'd forget how to speak at all.

[birchswinger3]

i absolutely agree. in fact, i was beginning with this notion of his in order to hopefully figure out why, exactly, i objected to his view. unfortunately i got lazy after laying out the jist of what he said. granted, the essay in which he discusses this stuff is far more intruiging and convincing than my poor summary of it, and there is a much better case made for it in his context, so if you're interested, you should check it out (i could try to dig it up). also the utter lack of meaning of the past was more a slipup on my part, and not quite what he said

[foxfour]

:D didn't mean to be attacking you; only kracauer. but i'd be interested to read what he actually said.

of course, we all make stories of our lives, if that's what you mean by the synthetic quality. it's something i always struggle with, because it sort of offends me when people do it, but we all do. and stories are always approximations of truth.

interesting indeed.

[birchswinger3]

haha, no attacks perceived at all... i always enjoy these kinds of discussions.

good point. interestingly, i always enjoy reading journals of people who have taken to the next level the fantasization and storylike construction/view of their daily lives. i know it's synthetic and a construction and perhaps false, but who knows. we all do it, and it hits home for me more than stark enumerations of details a la my first grade journals ("i am now eating brekfist. now i'm standing in line. i'm still standing in line. there is a lady with a long nek in frunt of me.")

[foxfour]

they certainly make for good reading.

i think part of why i am offended by it is because i always want to do it myself. but i feel it's dishonest or dangerous or something.