Post by mostakimvip09 on Nov 3, 2022 2:07:26 GMT -5
This is something that the ancient iconoclasts were keenly aware of. And with similar acumen for inversely similar goals the same view was cultivated by the art market. The selfish desire must aim at the acquisition of a material object and a unique one at that. But the photograph even if printed has no materiality. Its material form is always an imprint a trace of an image of which it always remains a material copy since there is no material original. A partial consequence of the above is that the photographic image must be received by the viewer all together as a single whole cut off from the rest of reality.
Just as the nonexistent original image would work if projected e-commerce photo editing through an imaginary machine directly into our brains like the images of our dreams. For the same reason and quite rightly it is not common in photo albums to cut up a photo and display its fragments fragments as is widely observed in painting albums. The photograph does not consist of many small individual images nor of many individual elements. Everything is unified and integrated into the one and only element that was first born by the particular photographer each time and that became his own photograph. That is why it is of paramount importance that the viewer captures the entirety of a in a fraction of a second corresponding to the one that gave birth to it.
Pushing this reasoning further it is easy to see why it is not only pointless but also not advisable to contemplate for a long time in front of a photograph as is usually done in front of paintings but on the contrary it is necessary to return more than once to the same photograph to renew our gaze upon it. The more one stares intently at a photograph the greater the risk of its deconstruction and precipitation of its unified whole. That is why a photograph cannot have individual good elements. Either the whole is saved or the whole is discarded. Even harder either it exists.
Just as the nonexistent original image would work if projected e-commerce photo editing through an imaginary machine directly into our brains like the images of our dreams. For the same reason and quite rightly it is not common in photo albums to cut up a photo and display its fragments fragments as is widely observed in painting albums. The photograph does not consist of many small individual images nor of many individual elements. Everything is unified and integrated into the one and only element that was first born by the particular photographer each time and that became his own photograph. That is why it is of paramount importance that the viewer captures the entirety of a in a fraction of a second corresponding to the one that gave birth to it.
Pushing this reasoning further it is easy to see why it is not only pointless but also not advisable to contemplate for a long time in front of a photograph as is usually done in front of paintings but on the contrary it is necessary to return more than once to the same photograph to renew our gaze upon it. The more one stares intently at a photograph the greater the risk of its deconstruction and precipitation of its unified whole. That is why a photograph cannot have individual good elements. Either the whole is saved or the whole is discarded. Even harder either it exists.