Space-Wizard said:
I don't really like taking photos to save particular moments, I think stories and poetry are more interesting than photographs, I've never understood tourists and folks that take pictures of literally everything when they go on a trip. Especially because almost all of their photos are rarely reviewed or truly shared with others.
People say a picture says a thousand words, but all of these words aren't necessarily relevant to the human experience involved, and most photographs I see aren't taken artistically to attempt to display these poetic and influential moments.
I like writing and reading stories. This is a rant.
I like writing too. I'm English language poet in residence for my university.
But... a long time ago Oscar Wilde gave me this:
“No great artist ever sees things as they really are. If he did, he would cease to be an artist.”
Of course, I wanted to disagree with him, because a lot of his statements are pretty 'wild(e)' and far-fetched. I wanted to be a realist. However: I think that the wild(e) nature of his work is part of the reason many consider him to be a genius. And his words must be partly true, a writer will always twist what's in front of them and there isn't anything wrong with them doing that. It's unavoidable that we're going to write about things only as we seem them, or only as we see others seeing them. It's also unavoidable that we will never catch the real appearance of something, only the (perceived) essence of something.
The things which stand out about someone's appearance to you, based on your own instinct and fetishism, will never be the same as the things which stand out to another, and that's what makes writing interesting, really. People actually don't want you to document every single thing, and you aren't able to, either.
The 'essence'... that's the important thing. A (good) poem is more interesting than a photograph, yes. But a picture has a purpose of its own, it's a more realistic piece of history. Beyond that it's very useful for capturing things which are incredibly transient or fast firing, like an array of traditional costumes, or, well, many of the beautiful moments in life. Someone might prefer seeing quickly a selection of photos of this kind of thing over a long poem struggling to fit in all of the different outfits, and a photo is still good reference for a future piece of art or a brief reminder of the past.
We just reserve poetry for what's truly thought provoking, for the most part.
That being said, I don't take many pictures myself. If the picture will be unique, or I plan on sending it to a friend far away, then I'll do it, yeah. Photos of certain sites have been taken a thousand times before, though, and so I see not so much reason to take any more. It's a little bit scary to imagine someone spending more time taking a photograph of something like a famous monument than actually looking at it, because they have their entire lives to look at photographs yet not long to be so physically close and able to see the tiny details from all perspectives.
I still maintain that one or two snaps, even with you in them just to prove you were there, do no harm. The only real mistake is having the goal: 'I'm going to go to xyz to take a picture', and not: 'I'm going to go to see xyz'. Even if you took a picture in the latter case, it's not much time lost, and there's always the chance you could use it in art (which you can often do even if the picture itself isn't very artistic)/ a postcard/ a photo album/ a slideshow for your grandkids. |