(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

[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.

as to the second bit: true. any larger picture or deeper truth is, in fact, composed of this very collection of details, unless you're a platonist (which i have the fault of pretending to be on occasion) and see these material specifics as almost-dismissable, imperfect manifestations of a deeper truth.

also, importantly, reality is the full scope and trajectory of these details, not just a snapshot of a particular instance. whereas one photograph or journal entry may not get at the reality of a person or the world, a collection of photographs or writings over time may indeed allow you to construe that. an isolated entry or photo, however, i think merely depicts a facet of this truth and cannot present the whole thing.

most of all, i agree with you, and what was actually going on in my mind throughout this entry was that i had an aversion to writing specifics of my life for i felt them lacking in depth/truth, and yet i feel that there isn't much else. also, collections of writings seem to have a synthetic and revelatory quality with respect to truth/essence that photographs sometimes lack... i dunno. basically, i take issue with kracauer's statements, too, but don't quite know why. :P ultimately i think i need to get over it and write details, because it's perhaps all we really have to go on.

all interesting thoughts... thanks :)

[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.