Books are great. I am a huge fan. For many hours have I trawled second hand book shops, op-shops and the like, looking for something to read. But there is one type of book that does not and never will be able to capture reality. Those books that contain photos of famous buildings/art/landscapes/etc. You know, the ones that try to give you the feeling of actually being there and witnessing that building/art/landscape/etc. I'm sorry, but reality wins hands down. I'm not denigrating the photo as a form of art. In fact, I love that form. But taking a picture of a photo and putting it in a book can never reproduce the experience of actually seeing that photo.
Case 1: Art
I am just a humble scientist. I'm not that fantastic expressing how or why a piece of art affects me. But I know it when it does. Looking through a book of art does not evoke any emotions. But as I walk through a gallery, I can experience them all. Here are few examples of works that captured my gaze, made me think and stirred me. But only by being there and seeing them in the 'flesh'.
Case 2: The Great Wall of China
This is definitely an experience. Pictures cannot describe this structure. It's not the size, it's not the length, it's, how can I put it, the "vibe". No picture will ever capture that.
I'm thinking about this at the moment because in about a week I'll be at Uluru. I've seen the pictures but .....
The Skeptic Zone #846 - 22.December.2024
6 hours ago
3 comments:
Though, funnily enough, when I saw the Taj Mahal, all I got was:
yeah, seen that before. Bit bigger than I expected
oh, and "humble scientist"? pfft. You're more than that 'door.
Where's that first painting? Is it in the National Gallery/National Portrait Gallery in London? I loved it.
It is in the National Gallery Amanda, and it's called "Jean de Dinteville and Georges de Selve ('The Ambassadors')". It's by Holbein the Younger. Isn't it so much better in real life?
Post a Comment