"The Ground Beneath Her Feet"

[don_essedi]

<p>The two photos may hold meaning as if they were containers for it, but may not themselves be meaningful in that way -- the way which requires the caption, text card, or other cues (such as 'Viet Cong', 'SVN', 'patriot' or whatever according to the ideology of the caption-writer). Or, as in another thread, the Eisenstaedt Times Square photo.</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p>Speaking of Eddie Adams' picture....I just ran across this:</p>

<p>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/13/anti-bp-art-the-best-visu_n_609660.html#s99510</p>

[jtk]

<p>Don, please rephrase your last post, perhaps using full sentences. I don't quite get your point.</p>

<p>Yes, captioning does affect (politicize, warp, flavor, propagandize) reception of the image and yes, it does directly indicate someone's idea of the "meaning" of the image. No image has verbal meaning ("hold meaning") without corresponding verbal information. </p>

<p>I don't think "meaning" exists in any verbal sense unless it's expressed verbally. There can be no gut-level, non- verbal meaning.</p>

<p>If you believe those two photos have non-verbal meaning I won't argue, but from my point of view, <em>"man's search for meaning" is a deceptive process</em> that's intended to take us away from behavioral goals, such as "directness," "awareness," and "kindness." Contrast Islam/Judaism/Christianity with Taoism/Buddhism .</p>

[don_essedi]

<p>"Don, please rephrase your last post, perhaps using full sentences. I don't quite get your point."</p>

<p>The two photos may hold meaning [re: "Those two photos hold different (more or less?) meaning..."]. as if they were containers for it, but may not themselves be meaningful in that way [in the way you indicate] -- the way [the 'way' you refer to] which requires the caption, text card, or other cues (such as 'Viet Cong', 'SVN', 'patriot' or whatever according to the ideology of the caption-writer). Or [it is similar to], as in another thread, the Eisenstaedt Times Square photo [WWII, VJ day, Times Square, parade]</p>

[jtk]

<p><strong>Don, thanks for responding </strong>to my request...I may understand your point a little more clearly.</p>

<p>I have the impression that you're saying photos may "hold meaning" that can't be meaningful verbally, but you may be saying something more subtle. Is that right?</p>

<p>You cited [the 'way' you refer to] . OK. <strong>The "way" to which I was referring was "verbal."</strong> I don't think there's such a thing as non-verbal meaning. Obviously there's non-verbal beauty, non-verbal enlightenment, non-verbal implication...but I think "meaning" is a specifically verbal concept.</p>

<p>The captions and titles to which you refer do attempt to assign meaning, but so do the noisy brains that are <strong>not capable of more holistic relationship </strong>to images (non-verbal or more than verbal, as in zen meditation...I hate <em>"holistic"</em> but don't have a better term)</p>

<p>Are you saying there's meaning in some photographs that is not easily expressed, but might be with some difficulty or genius? Capable of being expressed only poetically? ...something along those lines?</p>

[don_essedi]

<p><strong>John: </strong>"I have the impression that you're saying photos may "hold meaning" that can't be meaningful verbally, but you may be saying something more subtle. Is that right?"<br>

and<br>

"I don't think there's such a thing as non-verbal meaning."<br>

and<br>

"Are you saying there's meaning in some photographs that is not easily expressed, but might be with some difficulty or genius? Capable of being expressed only poetically? ...something along those lines?"</p>

<p>'Meaning' requires language. Even if someone says 'I can't put it in words', by saying so, they have put it in words. But because they have no conscious sense of the meaning they feel, to express it -- meaning in language -- they have to say it poetically, in metaphor, lyricism. The precision of news, who, what, when, where, isn't sufficient.</p>

 

[jtk]

<p><strong>Don, thanks. </strong> We seem to be on the same page regarding "meaning." </p>

<p>I think "significance" is more valuable than "meaning." But of course, that introduces more words to worry over. "Poetry" is an easy out because it's understood to be incapable of more direct expression. <strong>Perhaps that's one distinction between poetry and photography. </strong></p>

[vince-p]

<p>Late in this conversation -- very interesting -- just want to note for everyone and specifically to John K that Rushdie is Indian, raised in Mumbai as an Anglican and sent to very good British schools. He has no 'background as a Muslim' whatsoever. You only need to hear him speak to gather this actually. Thinking he's Muslim is a common mistake arising from Satanic Verses days but indeed regarding Islam he did what novelists do -- projected his mind into the realm of the "other". This in part is what got him into trouble.</p>

<p>Vince P</p>