john_h.1 Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-504083_162-10006434.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted March 23, 2013 Share Posted March 23, 2013 <p>Wouldn't that be figuratively? Unless he was just writing descriptively about his victims.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted March 23, 2013 Author Share Posted March 23, 2013 Since the portraits were shot and owned by a serial killer, no. The whole point of using literally was to specially highlight that the word portrait was not being used figuratively as it usually is when the phrase 'portrait of a serial killer' is used. Any comment on the portraits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 <p>What's there to say? It's a bunch of unremarkable snaps by a sociopath who doesn't deserve any additional attention outside of the judicial process.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
q.g._de_bakker Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 What Lex said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_h.1 Posted March 24, 2013 Author Share Posted March 24, 2013 That's why they are there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Lear Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 <p>Hmmm... I perused quite a few of these a few years ago when it was believed that many of Mr. Alcala's subjects might also have been his victims. Some unquestionably were, at least so said the jury. Given that I grew up in the area (his trial took place 3 miles from my current residence) I thought it worth looking, just in case I recognized anyone. I certainly don't find them all <em>unremarkable</em>. Besides, what is "unremarkable", anyway? One might think Cindy Sherman's <a href="http://www.artinfo.com/sites/default/files/styles/613w/public/2440_6.1.jpg">Untitled #96</a> "unremarkable" but probably not the schlep who doled out US$3,890,500 for it, right? Or maybe that ridiculously simplistic piece of crap Gursky pawned off on the auction block for four mil and change?<br /><br />Anyway, there is a mysterious intrigue to Alcala's portraits that transcends just their aesthetics. Each and every one of those people found themselves in the presence of a monster. Some lived to tell their story, others did not.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now