Jump to content

Music and Photography?


Recommended Posts

As an aside. A thesaurus tends to provide synonyms and RELATED concepts to the word looked up.

 

A dictionary, on the other hand, will usually provide the meaning and usage of a word.

 

Each serves a useful, though somewhat different if related, function.

 

Using a dictionary to determine the meaning and usage of "universal" would recognize its relationship to "widespread" and suggest why "universal" can in some instances be used to mean widespread, but would also recognize that the meaning of universal can and often does encompass quite a bit more than simply what "widespread" means.

 

That being said, for some words, both dictionary and thesaurus can be woefully inadequate. I've always felt that words like love, beauty, symbol (especially in terms of art), fear, etc. are better understood through their experience and discussion rather than through simple definition.

 

Here's the dictionary definition of love: an intense feeling of deep affection. Not that great. I think art gets closer to love than dictionaries.

 

Most encyclopedias of philosophy talk about "universal" in terms of non-particular, non-individual, and non-material. I think those are important aspects of universality that both dictionary and thesaurus seem to miss. They're also among the more controversial and disputed aspects of universality and why the very notion of universality comes under suspicion for a fairly large swath of thinkers. Many important and often larger-than-life concepts such as love, death, God, fear, universal, symbol, art, etc., entail controversy and disagreement. Those concepts, like good art which can be controversial and which can often be met with strong disagreement, gain in power from their inability to be nailed down simply and without dispute. IMO.

 

I think this discussion, at least for me, in developing my own thoughts about symbols, universality, meaning, and interpretation in photographs, and in coming to understand the thoughts of others on the subject, has been extremely worthwhile. I think more simple and straightforward declarations or definitions on these subjects would have been inadequate for me and wouldn't have inspired me to keep digging a little deeper and finding more and more riches. Though we mostly disagreed, I thank Phil for indulging the time and energy into it. Disagreement is to be expected and even embraced. The willingness to pursue, because of or in spite of disagreement, or even if there were no disagreement, is a key.

There’s always something new under the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

If I say that the analogy between tears and sorrow is a primal response that even children will recognize it is as such you deride it that it must mean that it’s uncomplicated and something on the level of a six year old, Well, ok, then don’t include something that has such a widespread (there, better?) symbolical meaning attached to it, I guess.

No, I’m saying though most children associate tears with sorrow, at some point we grow in awareness to be able to associate many other emotions with tears and that imagination gets us there. I give most viewers credit to be in touch with the mainstream or widespread response to something and also be able to respond differently when something nudges them elsewhere. One of the things art does is to nudge, as opposed always to confirming things already established.

Why? Because it pertains to the human condition of which art is an expression of and in which a handful of universal themes and ideas keep being explored.

A handful? The fact that art revisits themes throughout the years does not mean it’s limited to those themes. In any case, not only are themes revisited in different ways and to mean different things for different artists, symbols are as well. This is why in one photo a tear can be a symbol of sorrow and in another it can defy expectations and become a symbol of joy or laughter.

The use of 'universal' in universal symbol or universal symbology to describe something that points to a universal emotion should be pretty much self-evident.

It’s not and it’s begging the question. I’m saying, according to a deeper reading of the word “universal” than you’re willing to give it, the tear is not a universal symbol of the universal emotion of sorrow, so there’s nothing self evident about it because the word “universal” may apply to the emotion but doesn’t apply to the symbol.

 

Anyway, I like to think of art challenging the status quo, often emotionally, often thematically, often symbolically, often politically, and often aesthetically even while it can also be very confirming through some connected historical strands and traditions. Art uses both tradition and change. It can both recognize the tear as a symbol of sorrow and defy it. It can embrace and pay homage to universality without being its slave. It can also recognize, embrace, and pay homage to particularity. Much of art, and life, happens in the counterpoint between the universal and the particular. It’s a sort of game that’s played but not necessarily won ... or one ... way!

There’s always something new under the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few quotes I like about symbols. On the other hand I’m well aware that good quotes embracing the more traditional aspects of symbols are out there. That’s what makes symbols so interesting and challenging.

Each generation wants new symbols, new people, new names. They want to divorce themselves from their predecessors. —Jim Morrison

Beauty has as many meanings as man has moods. Beauty is the symbol of symbols. Beauty reveals everything because it expresses nothing. When it shows us itself it shows us the whole fiery-coloured world. —Oscar Wilde

And a really swell one ...

Homo sapiens is the species that invents symbols in which to invest passion and authority, then forgets that symbols are inventions. —Joyce Carol Oates
Edited by The Shadow
There’s always something new under the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Precisely because of its deeper meaning and connotation.

And that deeper meaning is “widespread”?

 

I’d suggest that you originally used the phrase “universal communication” because it sounded deeper and you probably did mean something deeper, but as you subsequently talked about universality you made it more and more banal, using phrases like “more likely” and “widespread” to describe it, and digging further and further into the untenable and non-artistic position that a tear could not be a symbol of anything but sorrow. I actually don’t think what you’ve said in this thread represents the Phil I’ve come to know (to whatever extent that’s possible through your photos and words on the Internet) at all. In short, I give you much more credit than for the things you’ve been saying in this thread.

There’s always something new under the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading this whole thread, I have to side with Phil S's interpretation.

 

When I see a smile, I always think "happy". When I see tears, I always think "sadness".

 

Not trying to twist anyone's arm to think like I do. Just my opinion.

I appreciate your honesty. The key is that you used the word “I” which tells me you’re thinking more individually than universally and more personally than symbolically.

 

I’ll also tell you that I do tend to notice and think about the photos people LIKE. Since I don’t remember ever seeing one of your own photos, I’ve come to know you, at least to the extent that’s possible here, through your LIKES. This is not a judgment but an observation. I have often predicted the photos of mine that you will like. They are few but tell me a story especially in conjunction with the photos of other people you tend to like. They seem to me the ones that are well crafted in a tradional sense, that are generally extremely pleasing to the eye, that are not emotionally or conceptually off kilter or challenging, and that have a very tradional kind of “beauty” or prettiness to them, sometimes more traditionally poignant photos as well. That traditional, sort of smooth bent seems consistent with ALWAYS thinking happy when seeing a smile and ALWAYS thinking sad when seeing a tear.

 

Given his own photos and the taste I can surmise from what Phil creates and often appreciates, I’m much more surprised by his reaction than yours.

Edited by The Shadow
There’s always something new under the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if I want to use symbols as effective tools of communication within the confines of a single image

You seem to be saying that an effective tool of communication is one that, for some strange reason, only buys into the prevailing sentiment, the most commonly understood meanings people attribute to things. What if you understand how people generally see tears and effectively communicate to them in such a way as to nudge them into seeing a tear differently or at least responding to a tear in less decisive ways. What about effective communication for an artist being a matter of getting people to question WHAT IS THIS or WHAT DOES THIS MEAN here instead of simply to confirm that it is what they always thought it was?

 

By the way, the tear in my photo just happened, and I didn't think about any of this consciously when taking the picture and not that much of it when working on the picture. As an observer, I see the tear in various ways now, and not in a sadness way. That others may see may see sadness is great. That others do not is also great.

 

It's important to remember that a photographed tear is something different from (and similar to) a real tear. Yes, a photographed tear is something real, but I hope my distinction is clear between the subject and a photo of that subject. And, often, the whole photo can be taken to be the subject, rather than an individual element. Anyway, a photographed tear is different from a non-photographed tear and I wouldn't expect the symbolism of a tear in someone's eye necessarily to work the same way as the symbolism of a photograph of a tear in someone's eye. Photographs, in many senses, invent their realities as much as capture them. The reality was the wind in his eye. The photograph is not that. The cross very much impacts that.

There’s always something new under the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s only to the extent that you have been steering and limiting the discussion of universal to such phrases

That's just false. I talked about universality in relation to contexts and universality in relation to both the individual and the particular. You presented the thesaurus definition. Please don't blame that on me!

 

What you're right about is that you've only addressed universality in terms of "widespread", though it wasn't at my behest. Otherwise, you've refused to describe what you mean by it except to suggest it's something deep. What that deep meaning is you've refused to say by using some mumbo jumbo excuse about words not being able to get at all things, as if that means you can't describe even around the thing you're getting at but instead leave us all to simply wonder what the hell it is you're actually talking about. If you can't talk about it, don't talk about it. But don't talk for 10 pages and tell us how deep it is and then say you really can't say more about it. You've said virtually nothing about "universal communication" or "universal" anything other than to keep repeating, without justification other than its being widespread, that a tear is a universal symbol for sorrow. What else besides its widespreadness, then, makes it the "deep" universal symbol for sorrow you claim it is?

There’s always something new under the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An effective tool of communication is one that fulfills the intention of the creator. If my intention is to express rapture and joy, the use of tears as a symbol wouldn't be an effective tool.

I believe in you more than you believe in yourself, or at least more than you claim at the moment to. I think if you wanted to express rapture with a tear you could do so quite effectively. Don't know why you're pretending otherwise.

There’s always something new under the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, honestly, I'm not as sure I'd be as able to do it as well as you. I certainly wasn't trying to communicate rapture with that photo. All I said was that's how some people who've seen it interpreted it. If I was "trying" or "intending" to do anything, it was to see what photographic possibility the tear had in the context it happened to appear when I took the shot, a shot which originated with a very different intention until the tear suddenly appeared and I was able to go with it and catch it. Never once did sadness or sorrow come into play for me.
There’s always something new under the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure you're the only one who has been confused all this time about what it is that I'm saying.

You haven't said anything about the depth of universality, other than to keep claiming it's deep, and still seem to be dodging it. I'm not confused. I'm waiting. I suspect I'll be waiting for a long time ... and that's ok at this point ...

There’s always something new under the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate your honesty. The key is that you used the word “I” which tells me you’re thinking more individually than universally and more personally than symbolically.

 

I’ll also tell you that I do tend to notice and think about the photos people LIKE. Since I don’t remember ever seeing one of your own photos, I’ve come to know you, at least to the extent that’s possible here, through your LIKES. This is not a judgment but an observation. I have often predicted the photos of mine that you will like. They are few but tell me a story especially in conjunction with the photos of other people you tend to like. They seem to me the ones that are well crafted in a tradional sense, that are generally extremely pleasing to the eye, that are not emotionally or conceptually off kilter or challenging, and that have a very tradional kind of “beauty” or prettiness to them, sometimes more traditionally poignant photos as well. That traditional, sort of smooth bent seems consistent with ALWAYS thinking happy when seeing a smile and ALWAYS thinking sad when seeing a tear.

 

Given his own photos and the taste I can surmise from what Phil creates and often appreciates, I’m much more surprised by his reaction than yours.

 

I used "I" because I'm only capable of expressing what "I" feel. Other people may think differently, but I believe the vast majority of people think "happy" when seeing a smile. I failed to clarify that I think the "Happy" interpretation of a smile is the FIRST sensation the vast majority of people feel. They may receive more information that indicates to them that the smile is, say "sarcastic" or of "resignation", depending of absorbing more information about surrounding conditions. Thus, there can be a gray area of interpretation that follows the first impression, if that makes sense.

 

The reason you haven't seen any photos from me except for my Great Ape's photo is that I shoot only film, and I'm not capable of converting my pictures to digital. The only reason the Great Ape picture is here is that my son (a computer programmer) converted it years ago for me. I'm incompetent like that. Digital just befuddles me :eek:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason you haven't seen any photos from me except for my Great Ape's photo is that I shoot only film, and I'm not capable of converting my pictures to digital. The only reason the Great Ape picture is here is that my son (a computer programmer) converted it years ago for me. I'm incompetent like that. Digital just befuddles me :eek:.

Yes. I knew that because I've heard you say it before. Hope you didn't think I was in any way chiding you or challenging you for not posting photos. I'm not usually one to do that, unless someone constantly refers to their own work without giving me the chance to see it for myself, which I've never heard you do. As a matter of fact, I respect your reasons for not doing so. I'm working on prints right now for an upcoming show, and even though I shoot digital, I relish what prints have to offer that screen images don't (even as I relish what screen images can offer than prints don't). It's like a whole different way of seeing and relating to my own images. Very exciting. So, the only reason I mentioned your not showing pictures is to make clear that I wasn't making the observations about your apparent tastes in photos based on your own photos but based on what you LIKE here. And, believe me, I know that's not a science nor a fool-proof method of observing someone's taste, but I wanted to be honest about my observations and how they seemed consistent with your reactions to smiles and tears. Do you find my observations about the photos you LIKE at all valid? I'm curious, because it's really an unknown and more of an observed impression.

There’s always something new under the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want to express rapture with a tear because there are better ways to express it if I wanted to express rapture.

 

Thats a vague statement as it would depend on the context. You know it very well.

 

never claimed that it's "deep", why would I because it's pretty much a given that universal symbol as it pertains to the human condition and art constitutes an inherent and primal response that is anything but superficial.

 

I agree, symbols and imagery that initiate a predictable reaction in the majority are usually skin deep. From your initial attitude in introducing the concept of 'universal communication' in this thread, I didn't feel though that you were referring to something thats just superficial. Your initial post seemed to me that you were speaking about communication that appeals to the inner mind and lingers or proves true in a non-transient way. universal in the sense that the effect is not restricted to particular cultures or communities or times in history. I think there are examples that might conform to that, like a dying child in mother's arm or a immigrant mother protecting her daughter from teargas as was published recently. However there is more to art than such straightforward examples and I am not even sure if art has to appeal universally. If it does, nothing wrong, but there can be images that appeal to certain communities due to being context dependent and not others, and I can value such art as deeply as I do those that have more widespread appeal. My feeling, universal appeal may exist and can be useful, but is that really a big deal?

 

Your own photo of two chairs being placed on two edges of the frame with emptiness in the middle creates a lot of visual tension and allegory for human relationship in my mind, but I am sure there can be more to it than what I make out of it and others can says things about it that I would not have felt. I don't think, you are communicating anything thats universal but you are opening a portal in people's minds to find their own messages and thats equally good for me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supriyo, you seem to know more about some of the science or academic study of this stuff than I do. I was reading the article linked below this morning (thanks to the thread for getting my brain going and getting me to do more reading and thinking on these subjects) and this author seems to be suggesting that even emotions aren't universal, let alone symbols related to those emotions. I haven't done enough subsequent checking to know if this might be a fringe theory, a more or less new way to think about emotions that challenges prevailing scientific thought, or a more commonly-held belief among some who study the brain, culture, and emotions.

 

LINK TO THE ARTICLE

 

When I think of universals, I think in terms of particulars. This chair is a particular chair. The idea of chair, chairness, is a universal. What it means to be a chair, what qualities chairs have that make them chairs, how we know a chair's a chair, those sorts of things. I don't think of predictable reactions.

 

For me, the universality of a symbol, if it exists, would not be about predictable reactions to the symbol. It would be about the way the symbol goes beyond the individual instantiation of it. In photography, how a photographer approaches something which causes, allows, or enables it to be something more than this particular instance of it. Not that it's locked into this or that interpretation for the majority, but that it's NOT locked into being the particular thing it is.

There’s always something new under the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I knew that because I've heard you say it before. Hope you didn't think I was in any way chiding you or challenging you for not posting photos. I'm not usually one to do that, unless someone constantly refers to their own work without giving me the chance to see it for myself, which I've never heard you do. As a matter of fact, I respect your reasons for not doing so. I'm working on prints right now for an upcoming show, and even though I shoot digital, I relish what prints have to offer that screen images don't (even as I relish what screen images can offer than prints don't). It's like a whole different way of seeing and relating to my own images. Very exciting. So, the only reason I mentioned your not showing pictures is to make clear that I wasn't making the observations about your apparent tastes in photos based on your own photos but based on what you LIKE here. And, believe me, I know that's not a science nor a fool-proof method of observing someone's taste, but I wanted to be honest about my observations and how they seemed consistent with your reactions to smiles and tears. Do you find my observations about the photos you LIKE at all valid? I'm curious, because it's really an unknown and more of an observed impression.

 

Nah, no offense taken.

 

As far as the "LIKES" I give to certain photos go, it depends on my mood. I am a manic depressive (bipolar disorder) on medication. I haven't been depressed in 16 years, but I still get "manic." That is, I get easily agitated when certain buttons are pressed. For example, whenever I read about what the democrats do trying to abolish our southern border, I get furious for a minute or two and then try to change the subject in my mind. On the other hand, If I meet a democrat, I'll greet him/her, shake hands even, and talk about something benign. NEVER politics with a real person LOL.

 

How my mania refers to my photo "LIKES" is that I tend to like abstracts and macro shots for a while, then portraits (I NEVER shoot portraits, myself), and then perhaps architectural shots, and so on. I usually don't like landscapes (a few get likes though if they're colorful or majestic). Nor do I care much for flower photos unless they're really unusual.

 

I guess that's enough for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I do think it's fascinating to discuss how the same symbol used the same way might be similar or vary across cultures and upbringings (and even biological differences such as male/female), I'm definitely interested in exploring how using the same symbols in different photographic contexts can affect the symbols themselves, even within my own culture or cultural milieu. I agree with you there's likely more ambiguity in using a tear to symbolize the many things it can symbolize aside from sadness, and that's what appeals to me in doing so with photography.

 

I agree with you. I usually see my own work as the start of a road than the end of it (a road that can diverge depending on who is taking it). I also appreciate others works when I see that trait there, perhaps more predominantly than mine. I see that in your works using more human subjects and in Phil's using more inanimate symbols may be.

 

Though I did pick up on it earlier, someone just reminded me of Phil's use of "howl" as opposed to linguistic conventions. And I think that would apply to symbolic conventions as well. Howling seems to me the opposite of definitive communication, it is more from the gut, less reasoned, less conventional than sticking just to or relying solely on the traditional and relatively easy symbolism of tear as sadness.

 

I don't give too much importance to one-to-one communication in art (I think you don't as well), because many times, artists just throw something in the air and it lands on people in different ways. Some get hit by it, while others can be soothed by it. That it ... can be a rhetorical question or a simple expression that just happens to resonate with others. Even formally commissioned works by some Renaissance artists that are intended to communicate the funder's point of view in the most unambiguous way contain such elements that can be contradictory to how they appear on the surface.

 

I agree, combination of symbols that produce a common knee-jerk reaction almost universally, can be used as a hook to make viewers to look deeper, often landing onto a controversy or a contradiction. It also acts as a filter to keep on the surface those, who are satisfied by the superficial meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah, no offense taken.

 

As far as the "LIKES" I give to certain photos go, it depends on my mood. I am a manic depressive (bipolar disorder) on medication. I haven't been depressed in 16 years, but I still get "manic." That is, I get easily agitated when certain buttons are pressed. For example, whenever I read about what the democrats do trying to abolish our southern border, I get furious for a minute or two and then try to change the subject in my mind. On the other hand, If I meet a democrat, I'll greet him/her, shake hands even, and talk about something benign. NEVER politics with a real person LOL.

 

How my mania refers to my photo "LIKES" is that I tend to like abstracts and macro shots for a while, then portraits (I NEVER shoot portraits, myself), and then perhaps architectural shots, and so on. I usually don't like landscapes (a few get likes though if they're colorful or majestic). Nor do I care much for flower photos unless they're really unusual.

 

I guess that's enough for now.

Thanks. A personal and genuine response. Much appreciated.

There’s always something new under the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Supriyo, you seem to know more about some of the science or academic study of this stuff than I do. I was reading the article linked below this morning (thanks to the thread for getting my brain going and getting me to do more reading and thinking on these subjects) and this author seems to be suggesting that even emotions aren't universal, let alone symbols related to those emotions. I haven't done enough subsequent checking to know if this might be a fringe theory, a more or less new way to think about emotions that challenges prevailing scientific thought, or a more commonly-held belief among some who study the brain, culture, and emotions.

 

LINK TO THE ARTICLE

 

 

Fred, thanks for the link to the article. I was starting to read it with the mindset of a scientific article, but then I realized it is an opinion piece, not a scientific article because it doesn't rigorously support many of the statements with evidence as peer reviewed articles require. However, its an interesting article and the question she raises is definitely of fundamental importance. Human brain and its connection with self-awareness is still a mystery. The author refers to complex emotions such as pride, guilt or ambition, and suggests that the brain provides the support for these feelings, but that to recognize them, one has to be culturally subjected to the relevant situations (repeatedly as a method of learning). This distinction between support vs learned awareness has some evidence I think. There is a lot of controversy about how the ancient greeks recognized color. https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-ancient-Greeks-could-not-see-blue The ability of brain to distinguish among the different colors was already there, but perhaps the cultural influence was responsible for the way Greeks treated colors differently than us.

 

That said, many of the examples of complex emotion she cites, i.e. pride, guilt or ambition are quite fundamental, and in my opinion would be experienced in every culture whenever multiple humans try to coexist in a community. There may have differences in intensities, but still I think pretty common among cultures. Even more complex emotions such as peer pressure, herd mentality or self esteem that are frequently encountered in modern life have their analogies in remote cultures, but with varied priorities. So, yes its a very important and relevant question she raises, but I just don't know how much weightage to place on cultural influence vs what is already hardwired in the brain. To answer this question, one has to closely compare different cultures possibly by cohabiting with them, which is beyond the scope of the article.

 

When I think of universals, I think in terms of particulars. This chair is a particular chair. The idea of chair, chairness, is a universal. What it means to be a chair, what qualities chairs have that make them chairs, how we know a chair's a chair, those sorts of things. I don't think of predictable reactions.

 

For me, the universality of a symbol, if it exists, would not be about predictable reactions to the symbol. It would be about the way the symbol goes beyond the individual instantiation of it. In photography, how a photographer approaches something which causes, allows, or enables it to be something more than this particular instance of it. Not that it's locked into this or that interpretation for the majority, but that it's NOT locked into being the particular thing it is.

 

If I understand you correctly, the symbol should make a viewer think about the greater thing it represents in it's category, not just that particular thing or subject. You are not stressing on how many or whether all viewers get the bigger picture, but the big picture itself. For example, this photo appeared to me about the universal symbol of motherhood, among other things. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2018/12/specials/year-in-pictures/media/images/yip2018/128news.jpg I was thinking about that particular mother and her particular children and the situation itself, but above all I resonated with the mother's distressed look and her instinctual urge to get her kids out of danger which has a more universal appeal to it. However, I don't think my feeling about the picture is unique and I suspect many people to be feeling the same way, if not all. Given what you said, I am beginning to think now that the common reaction to an universal symbol is an effect rather than the central aspect of the universality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I understand you correctly, the symbol should make a viewer think about the greater thing it represents in it's category, not just that particular thing or subject. You are not stressing on how many or whether all viewers get the bigger picture, but the big picture itself. For example, this photo appeared to me about the universal symbol of motherhood, among other things. http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2018/12/specials/year-in-pictures/media/images/yip2018/128news.jpg I was thinking about that particular mother and her particular children and the situation itself, but above all I resonated with the mother's distressed look and her instinctual urge to get her kids out of danger which has a more universal appeal to it. However, I don't think my feeling about the picture is unique and I suspect many people to be feeling the same way, if not all. Given what you said, I am beginning to think now that the common reaction to an universal symbol is an effect rather than the central aspect of the universality.

I think we're on the same wavelength here. Reading your comments and rereading my own words that you were responding to, I want to be clear that, yes, I think universals are a big picture thing and a counterpoint to particulars but I don't think them (and don't think you were saying this either) more important than particulars. I think particulars (that mother and child seen as that mother and child) are vital in bringing us to awareness of universals and I think much art deals directly with individual instances of things even when, through symbols or other mechanisms, the art also goes beyond that to a more universal idea or ideal. So, while I might do a portrait that's, to me and to my subject, about more than just the subject and his or her personality and feelings at the moment, his or her feelings at the moment and personality are also of vital importance both to each of us and to the portrait itself. Even if the subject of a portrait is playing a role for the camera and being made by the photo into some sort of "character", that character is still coming from some true place in them ... and hopefully me. Even a persona adopted for the moment has a personal truth and reality to it. The great thing about effective, meaningful, and moving symbols is that they feel both personal and universal.

There’s always something new under the sun.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

much like the statement tears of joy is a figure of speech even though nobody actually sheds tears or cries when they're joyous or in a laughing kick just like nobody cries when their eyes get all teared up because of cold wind.

 

I have faced situations where I have cried for being overjoyed, and there were tears and everything. The birth of my daughter was one such incident. Tears of joy isn’t just a figure of speech. However I agree, tears are more associated with sorrow, and smile with laughter - sounds kind of childish LOL. It’s also true that tears in art don’t always represent sorrow. If they did, we would have been bored before long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...